Technical and economic evaluation of potable water production through desalination … · 2006. 8....
148
IAEA-TECDOC-666 Technical and economic evaluation of potable water production through desalination of seawater by using nuclear energy and other means INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
Transcript of Technical and economic evaluation of potable water production through desalination … · 2006. 8....
IAEA-TECDOC-666
Technical and economic evaluation ofpotable water production
through desalination of seawaterby using nuclear energy
and other means
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF POTABLE WATER PRODUCTIONTHROUGH DESALINATION OF SEAWATER
BY USING NUCLEAR ENERGY AND OTHER MEANSIAEA, VIENNA, 1992IAEA-TECDOC-666ISSN 1011-4289
Printed by the IAEA in AustriaSeptember 1992
PLEASE BE AWARE THATALL OF THE MISSING PAGES IN THIS DOCUMENT
WERE ORIGINALLY BLANK
FOREWORD
In 1989, the IAEA General Conference requested the Director General through resolutionGC(XXXIII)/RES/515 "to assess the technical and economic potential for using nuclear heat reactorsin seawater desalination in the light of the relevant experience gained during the past decade, to assessthe interest of potential beneficiaries and technology holders, and to report - through the Board ofGovernors - to the Conference at its thirty-fourth (1990) regular session".
In response to this resolution, a status report was prepared and published in September 1990with the title "Use of Nuclear Reactors for Seawater Desalination" (IAEA-TECDOC-574).
Considering the conclusions and recommendations contained in the status report, the 1990General Conference requested the Director General in resolution GC(XXXIV)/RES/540: "to contactappropriate United Nations agencies and international and national organizations and institutions witha view to assessing all available information on the future need for potable water relevant to nucleardesalination; to assess in detail - within his competence and with the assistance of international andother organizations concerned and also making use of cost-free experts whenever possible - the costsof potable water production with various sizes of nuclear desalination plant at selected promising sites,with a comparison of the costs of desalination by nuclear and other means; to include nucleardesalination as one of the activities in future programmes of the Agency in the process of preparingthe Agency's programme and budget;" and to present to the General Conference at its thirty-fifthregular session "a report on progress in implementing the relevant recommendations contained in theAttachment to document GC(XXXIV)/928".
In response to resolution GC(XXXIV)/RES/540, the Secretariat contacted - inter alia - thoseUnited Nations agencies (FAO, UNEP, UNESCO, WHO and WMO) which have been engaged ina special programme of water resource assessment activities since the United Nations WaterConference held in Argentina in 1977; it suggested co-operation in the area of information exchangeand received data about freshwater requirements and resources in different countries and regions. Inaddition, the World Bank was approached with a view to co-operation in the nuclear desalination area.
Subsequent to the adoption of the above mentioned resolution, Algeria, Egypt, the LibyanArab Jamahiriya, Morocco and Tunisia submitted a request to the IAEA for assistance in conductinga feasibility study on nuclear desalination for selected sites in North Africa. The Secretariat decidedto proceed simultaneously with the economic assessment requested in the General Conferenceresolution and with the regional feasibility study requested by these five Member States.
The initial activities, undertaken as part of the economic assessment, consisted of reviewingand analysing the relevant information and data available within the Secretariat (mainly informationand data resulting from earlier studies on nuclear desalination and on small and medium powerreactors) and in obtaining through an enquiry (questionnaires) complementary, up-to-date, technicaland economic information and data from potential suppliers of nuclear reactors suitable for couplingto desalination plants. Also, the availability and the characteristics of desalination processes werelooked into. These activities were followed by comparative economic assessments carried out withthe assistance of interested potential suppliers and of consultants.
At the same time, activities were carried out within the framework of the regional feasibilitystudy. Emphasis was placed on analysing the electricity and potable water demand and the availableenergy and water resources in the participating countries, and on reviewing desalination processes andrelevant experience. Included within the scope of the feasibility study were also the selection of
representative sites, the analysis of the supply conditions for electricity and potable water, site specificeconomics, financing aspects, local participation, infrastructure requirements, institutional andenvironmental aspects and launching conditions. These activities were performed jointly with relevantinstitutions in the participating countries, and preliminary results were obtained. Though work onthe feasibility study is still in progress, it is expected that the final results will confirm the conclusionsarrived at in this report.
A report on progress achieved was presented to the General Conference in September 1991(GC(XXXV)/INF/298). At this time, the General Conference requested the Director General toreport again to the 1992 General Conference (GC(XXXV)/RES/563).
The present report has been prepared and is presented in response to this request. It containsan assessment of the need for desalination, information on the most promising desalination processesand energy sources, as well as on nuclear reactor systems proposed by potential suppliers worldwide.The main part of the report is devoted to evaluating the economic viability of seawater desalinationby using nuclear energy, in comparison with fossil fuels. This evaluation encompasses a broad rangeof both nuclear and fossil plant sizes and technologies, and combinations with desalination processes.Finally, relevant safety and institutional aspects are briefly discussed.
Appreciation is expressed for their valuable contributions to all those experts who participatedin the preparation of this report and also to the Member States for their generous support to assist theIAEA in this work. The experts wish to thank General Atomics (USA) for permission to use theirspreadsheets.
EDITORIAL NOTE
In preparing this material for the press, staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency havemounted and paginated the original manuscripts and given some attention to presentation.
The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the governments of the Member States ororganizations under whose auspices the manuscripts were produced.
The use in this book of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply anyjudgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of theirauthorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries.
The mention of specific companies or of their products or brand names does not imply anyendorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA.
CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... 7
1.1. Need for desalination ............................................................................ 71.2. Available desalination processes ............................................................... 71.3. Energy sources available for coupling to desalination plants ............................ 81.4. Economic assessment ............................................................................ 91.5. Safety, regulatory, environmental and institutional aspects .............................. 111.6. Main conclusions ................................................................................. 12
2. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 15
2.1. Need for potable water .......................................................................... 152.2. Need for seawater desalination ................................................................ 172.3. Reasons for nuclear energy .................................................................... 18
3. DESALINATION PROCESSES ..................................................................... 20
3.1. General ............................................................................................. 203.2. Water quality ...................................................................................... 203.3. Energy consumption of seawater desalination .............................................. 27
3.3.1. RO energy consumption ............................................................... 273.3.2. MED energy consumption ............................................................. 273.3.3. MED/VC energy consumption ....................................................... 283.3.4. MSF energy consumption ............................................................. 32
3.4. By-products ........................................................................................ 32
4. ENERGY SOURCES .................................................................................. 33
4.1. General ............................................................................................. 334.2. Fuel-oil or gas plants ............................................................................ 334.3. Coal fired plants .................................................................................. 334.4. Diesel engines ..................................................................................... 334.5. Other alternative energy sources .............................................................. 364.6. Nuclear reactors .................................................................................. 36
5. COUPLING OF DESALINATION PLANT WITH ENERGY SOURCE .................. 38
5.1. Desalination plant using only electricity ..................................................... 385.2. Desalination plant using mainly thermal energy ........................................... 395.3. Electrical grid integration ....................................................................... 40
6. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 43
6.1. Economic assessment methodologies ......................................................... 436.1.1. Single purpose plant .................................................................... 436.1.2. Dual purpose plant ...................................................................... 44
6.2. Economic and performance parameters ...................................................... 456.3. Input cost data for desalination plants ........................................................ 476.4. Input cost data for fossiles fuelled plants .................................................... 48
6.5. Input cost data for nuclear plants ............................................................. 496.6. Levelized energy and water costs ............................................................. 506.7. Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................... 536.8. Conclusions ........................................................................................ 55
7. SAFETY, REGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS ......................... 61
7.1. Safety ............................................................................................... 617.2. Regulatory and licensing aspects .............................................................. 617.3. Environmental aspects ........................................................................... 62
8. INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS ........................................................................ 63
8.1. Financing .......................................................................................... 638.2. Planning and regional considerations ......................................................... 64
8.2.1. Long term energy and water supply development ................................ 648.2.2. Infrastructure and national participation ............................................ 66
8.3. Safeguards and non-proliferation .............................................................. 678.4. Public acceptance ................................................................................. 67
ANNEX I. TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF REACTORS ............................... 69
ANNEX II. LEVELIZING METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 79
ANNEX m. DESALINATION COST ANALYSIS .................................................... 83
ANNEX IV.WATER TRANSPORT COSTS ........................................................... 131
ANNEX V. CASE STUDY ON POTABLE WATER SUPPLY IN SOUTH TUNISIA ....... 135
REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 145
ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ 147
DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................. 149
CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW .................................................. 151
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1. NEED FOR DESALINATION
Worldwide availability of potable water exceeds substantially the amounts of water beingused. However, water resources are not evenly distributed. It is estimated that about three quartersof the world's population lack safe drinking water. Population growth, increased pollution andreduction of existing ground and surface water resources are expected to increase water supplyproblems, in particular in arid regions. In addition to potable water, which is essential to sustain life,water is required by households to ensure an adequate quality of life, by industry as an essential inputto industrial production, and by agriculture, where irrigation may be needed to complementprecipitation.
There is no worldwide inventory of requirements for seawater desalination. Nevertheless theextent and distribution of current desalination capacity (by the end of 1991, 15.6 million m3/d capacityhad been contracted in 30 countries) provides an indication of the regions and countries which havealready exhausted other less expensive potable water supply options, and which are expected tocontinue to expand their desalination capacities in the future. The most important users are theMiddle East (about 70% of the worldwide capacity), mainly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United ArabEmirates, Qatar and Bahrain and North Africa (6%), mainly the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Algeria.Among industrialized countries, the USA (6.5%) is an important user (California and parts ofFlorida). Other countries taken together have less than 1 % of worldwide capacity. Statistics showa rapid increase of the installed desalination capacity during the last decade.
Assuming that the growth rates of the capacity for seawater desalination production prevalentduring the last decade will be approximately maintained during the 1990s, there might be about20 million m3/d capacity in operation worldwide by the year 2000.
Medium and long term forecasts beyond the year 2000 are highly speculative. A doublingof installed capacity each decade seems to be a reasonable expectation, assuming that current trendsare maintained. Should major cost reductions be achieved, growth rates could be substantially higher.
1.2. AVAILABLE DESALINATION PROCESSES
Seawater desalination is not new, and was already used in ancient times to produce drinkingwater. In this respect, it is similar to windpower. The current desalination technology, however,involving large scale application, has a history comparable to nuclear power, i.e., it spans about threedecades. Desalination is an established and proven commercially available technology, with furtherpotential for improvement. Experience shows that desalination plants can be operated with highavailability, if high quality standards are applied and maintenance is given due attention.
For the purposes of the present report, the scope of a "desalination plant" encompasses acomplete installation which is capable of producing desalted seawater, including water intake andoutlet structures, the processing plant which may include several desalination units, and all on-siteauxiliary installations needed for proper operation and maintenance, except the energy source. Thelimits of this scope are the input connections for the supply of energy and the outlet for the potablewater produced. Water storage, transport and distribution facilities are not included. The reason whythe energy source has been excluded from the scope is to facilitate a comparative evaluation of theeconomics of using different energy supply options.
Among the various existing desalination processes described in IAEA-TECDOC-574 "Use ofNuclear Reactors for Seawater Desalination", the following have been selected for the present studyas the most interesting for large scale water production: reverse osmosis (RO), multieffect distillationwith vapour compression (MED/VC), multieffect distillation (MED), and multistage flash distillation
(MSF). All are proven by experience and all are commercially available from a variety of suppliers.For the detailed economic assessment, the RO and MED processes have been selected asrepresentative, but costs have also been calculated for MED/VC and MSF.
To desalinate water, energy is required. The form and amount of the energy input dependson the process used. RO and MED/VC require only mechanical energy which in this report is in theform of electricity. Respectively, 5-7 and 7-9 kW(e) -h of electricity is required for producing onem3 of potable water, depending on the design, unit size and site conditions. These amounts do notinclude energy consumed for water transport and distribution, which would again be provided byelectricity (pumping power) and would be the same for any desalination process at the same site andwith the same production volume.
For the distillation processes (MED and MSF) the energy input is mainly in the form of lowtemperature heat (hot water or steam) and some electricity, which for MED is about2-2.5 kW(e)«h/m3 and for MSF about 4-6 kW(e)-h/m3. The heat consumption depends on thedesign, in particular the number of effects and the "gain-output ratio" (GOR), which in turn is relatedto the temperature of the heat source. For MED, the specific heat consumption is in the range of30-120kW(th)-h/m3 for heat source inlet temperatures of 120°C to 70°C and for MSF about55-120 kW(th)-h/m3.
All energy requirements of the current worldwide desalination capacity could be supplied bya generating capacity of about 4000-5000 MW(e), which is equivalent to around 1 % of the totalnuclear power in operation and under construction in the world.
1.3. ENERGY SOURCES AVAILABLE FOR COUPLING TO DESALINATION PLANTS
The energy required for seawater desalination can be supplied either by conventional ornuclear sources; there are no technical impediments to the use of electricity or heat (or both) producedby a nuclear reactor. In principle, nuclear power reactors could accommodate any size of desalinationplant.
When desalination plants are supplied with electricity from an electric grid system whichcontains nuclear power generating capacity, a corresponding part of their energy demand is effectivelysupplied by nuclear power. Of course, this applies to any type of industrial installation supplied withelectricity from such a grid.
When an electric grid is available (grid concept), the electricity generating plant can beintegrated into the grid and optimized to satisfy the combined energy demand of both the electricitymarket and of the desalination plant, thus benefiting from the size effect. When no electric gridconnection is available, the generating plant would have to be dedicated to supplying energy to thedesalination plant only, and the size of the plant would then be determined by the energy demand ofthe desalination plant.
The generating plant could be land-based or floating, and could be used for heat productiononly, for cogeneration of electricity and heat (coupled with the MED or MSF processes), or forelectricity production only (coupled with the RO or MED/VC processes). When coupled with theMED or MSF process, the power plant would have to be located adjacent to the desalination plant;when coupled with the RO or MED/VC processes, it would not need to be near the desalination site.
With the grid concept, depending on the size of the interconnected electric system and on theenergy demand of the desalination plant, any size of nuclear reactor could be employed, either forthe cogeneration of electricity and heat or for electricity generation only. Without a grid connection,only small reactors would be suitable.
Regarding available reactor systems, information and data have been provided to the Agencyin response to a questionnaire, including some twenty different concepts covering a wide range ofsizes and types of reactor, as well as fields of application (production of electricity, heat, orcogeneration). All concepts are based on known technology, incorporating advanced features intendedto increase safety levels, achieve simplifications, and improve performance. According to thepotential suppliers, some systems are commercially available now, while others are expected tobecome available in the future. None, however, have been built or committed to date.
In addition to the received information on reactors, various current designs of large sizenuclear power plants are known to be commercially available at present. Regarding additionaladvanced concepts which are under development, no detailed information has been received inresponse to the enquiry. It should be noted that because of the high cost of development for advancedreactors, especially the innovative concepts, Member States with have ongoing programmes inadvanced reactor development may find it attractive to cooperate internationally in technologydevelopment.
For the purposes of the present study, fossil fuelled plants have been taken as the availablealternative energy supply source, against which nuclear plants have to compete. Fossil fuelled plantsinclude diesel engines, gas turbines, combined cycle or coal fired electrical plants, or boilers for thesupply of heat only.
1.4. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
Experience shows that most nuclear power plants currently operated in electrical systemsprovide electricity at competitive costs. The cost of electricity produced by nuclear plants may exceedthe cost of fossil alternatives in cases where very low cost coal or gas is available, but in most cases,nuclear power plants constitute the cheapest source of electricity, often by substantial margins.According to the operators of nuclear cogeneration plants in several countries, the heat generated bythese plants is competitive with alternative fossil fuelled supply options. In all existing nuclearcogeneration plants, electricity is the main product (more than 90%). There is no commercialexperience yet in single purpose nuclear plants for heat production.
Economic assessments of current medium or large size power reactors can be performed withreasonable accuracy and confidence, as there is substantial information available, including costinformation on such reactors operating in the cogeneration mode. Such reactors could readily provideenergy to desalination plants without substantial design modifications. Owing to their size, theywould have to be integrated into electrical grids and would supply primarily electricity to theinterconnected system, and in addition, energy to the desalination plants (electricity, or cogeneratedheat and electricity). In most locations, the cost of energy produced would compare favourably withequivalent fossil sources, considering fuel costs prevalent on the international market.
For new designs of reactors, in particular in the lower size ranges, detailed and reliableeconomic assessments are much more difficult to perform, as there is less information available.Nevertheless, the cost estimates provided to the Agency by prospective suppliers indicate that suchreactors should be economically competitive.
Economic assessment of fossil fuelled plants can also be performed with reasonable accuracyand confidence, as there is much experience available. Fossil energy production costs depend heavilyon fuel prices, which are expected to increase in the future. In addition, discussions have beeninitiated in a number of countries to charge fossil fuelled plants with a special tax because of theirCO2 emissions. It is to be noted that the influence of fuel costs on nuclear energy costs is much less.It is also expected that nuclear fuel cycle costs will remain more stable than fossil fuel costs in thefuture.
For any desalination process, specific water production costs would be lower with largerdesalination units (economics of scale). Site related factors also have a substantial influence onproduction costs, in particular seawater composition and temperature, and water intake and outletstructures. Costs for RO desalination plants are strongly influenced by the required quality of thewater produced. None of the processes selected for the study show a clear general economicadvantage with respect to the others, though recent contracting experience indicates preference forthe RO process. In 1991, RO accounted for about half of the desalination capacity ordered, inparticular for desalination of brackish water.
The method considered appropriate for deriving average water costs for seawater desalinationis the constant money levelized cost method. In the assessment all costs are expressed in the January1991 US dollar currency unit.
For assessing the final cost of potable water provided to the consumer, there are threeprincipal cost components, with the first two corresponding to the water production cost:
the cost of desalination resulting from capital charges and from operation and maintenanceof the desalination plant, not including costs related to energy supply;
the cost of energy supplied to the desalination plant; and
the cost related to water storage, transport and distribution to the consumer (including capitalcharges of the relevant installations, operation, maintenance, energy consumption and losses).
The share of these components in the final water cost depends on many factors, such asproduction capacity, process used, site characteristics, energy source, transport route and distance.A rough estimate of the order of magnitude indicates that the sum of the first two components (waterproduction cost) represent about half of the final water cost.
The energy source (nuclear or fossil fuelled alternatives) with its corresponding energy costaffects the water production costs in proportion to its share in the overall water production.Therefore, specific cost uncertainties of the energy source are of minor influence. Each costcomponent, however, has its importance, and any cost reductions which can be achieved, willcontribute to the overall aim of providing potable water economically.
In the comparative economic assessment which has been performed, the costs of waterstorage, transport and distribution were not considered. This cost component is fundamentally sitedependant and can only be analysed on a case by case basis. The cost of electricity, which dependson the energy source chosen, will effect the water transport and distribution costs (pumping), but thiswill be relatively minor. A more important effect on the cost of transport may come from sitingconstraints, if the energy source and the desalination plant have to be located adjacent to each other,as compared to independent siting conditions applicable to the processes which require electricityonly.
The desalination cost component (excluding energy input) has been evaluated using costinformation available from the desalination market. It has been found that desalination plants(excluding the energy sources) are in general capital intensive, investment requirements being on theorder of $1000 to $2000 per m3 of production per day, for large units. Plants using the RO processare at the lower end of capital investment, but they have higher operation and maintenance costs.
The choice of the energy source has little influence on the two production cost componentsof the desalination plants, corresponding to capital charges and operation and maintenance costs. Theinfluence of the choice of the energy source is practically limited to the energy cost component.
10
Among fossil fuelled plants, it has been found that low speed diesel engines are the mosteconomical choice for small electricity generation capacities, up to about 50 MW(e); gas turbines forup to about 100 MW(e); combined cycle gas and steam turbines or fuel oil or gas fired plants for thelargest sizes available for these options (500 MW(e)); and coal plants for sizes above 500 MW(e).All fossil fuelled plants are less capital intensive than the equivalent nuclear options, but have a largerfuel cost component.
The economic assessment of the nuclear option has been based on cost information availablein general, and in particular on information provided to the IAEA in response to the questionnaire.To cover a wide range, representative sizes of 50, 300, 600 and 900 MW(e) were selected for singlepurpose electricity or dual purpose (cogeneration of electricity and heat) plants, and 50, 100, 200,and 500 MW(th) for single purpose heat only units. The economics of units in the very small sizerange have not been analysed in detail. For single purpose electricity and dual purpose nuclear plants(electricity being the main product), the estimated specific construction costs were between $1600 and$2800 per kW(e). Heat only single purpose plants were estimated to cost between $650 and$1700 per kW(th).
In all power plant construction costs (nuclear as well as fossil fuelled) an increase of 10% wasincluded, to take into account a cost differential applicable to an assumed location on the NorthAfrican coast compared to base costs estimated for locations in supplier countries. A comprehensiveset of economic and performance parameters has been adopted, and levelized energy costs as well aswater costs have been calculated, and constituted the basis for comparison. For dual purpose(cogeneration of electricity and heat) plants in particular, the "power credit" method has been used.
Calculations were performed for the following cases:
real interest rates of 5, 8 and 10%;coupling of nuclear and fossil fuelled plants with desalination plants using the variousrepresentative processes selected;EC and WHO drinking water standards;different load factor assumptions;increased or reduced construction costs;escalated and higher or lower fossil fuel costs.
These parameters were considered to be those which have a large influence on the economics.
1.5. SAFETY, REGULATORY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS
To complement the comparative economic assessment of seawater desalination, other relevantaspects have also been considered.
Practically all factors, conditions, requirements and arguments which apply to theconsideration of nuclear versus fossil energy supply systems are in general equally valid and relevantwhen these energy sources are used for seawater desalination. This is to be expected, because inprinciple it makes no difference to the desalination plant if the energy (electricity or both electricityand heat) it receives is produced by nuclear fission or by burning fossil fuels.
In addition, however, there are some aspects which are unique to the coupling of nuclearreactors with desalination plants, such as: the need to avoid any conceivable radioactive contaminationof the potable water which is the end product of the desalination plants; the need for joint long termplanning of both water and energy supply; and the coordinated implementation of related projects.
These additional aspects have to be taken into account, but it appears that none of thempresent unsurmountable impediments to the practical application of nuclear power for supplyingenergy to desalination plants.
11
It is to be noted that financing may constitute a major constraint for those countries whichneed desalination but have scarce financial resources. Desalination plants, water transport anddistribution systems as well as nuclear power plants are all capital-intensive installations. For thesecountries, innovative financing approaches, preferential financing terms and international supportwould be needed to facilitate their access to clean and safe potable water.
1.6. MAIN CONCLUSIONS
The following are main conclusions of the results of the study.
Demand for seawater desalination
By the end of 1991, about 15.6 million m3/d desalination capacity was contracted worldwide.Demand is expected to increase, as less expensive alternative options gradually become exhausted.Assuming that past trends prevail, about 20 million m3/d capacity is expected to be in operation bythe year 2000, which could be doubled in the following decade.
Available desalination systems
Seawater desalination is an established and commercially available technology. Among thevarious processes, RO, MED/VC, MED and MSF appear to be those with the best near-termprospects. RO and MED have been selected as representative processes for the detailed economicanalysis, but cost calculations have also been performed for MED/VC and MSF. The energy inputrequired by RO and MED/VC is mechanical energy (e.g. electricity), while for MED and MSF lowtemperature heat (steam or hot water) and electricity are needed.
Available energy sources
Nuclear power and fossil fuelled plants are considered to be the available options to provideelectricity, heat, or both electricity and heat to desalination plants. There are no technicalimpediments to the use of either option. Fossil fuelled plants include diesel engines, gas turbines,combined cycle units, and oil, gas or coal fired steam/power plants or boilers.
Available nuclear reactors
In response to an IAEA questionnaire, information and data were provided by potentialsuppliers on about twenty advanced reactor concepts, covering a broad range of sizes, types ofreactor, fields of application and development status. In addition, various current designs of largesize reactors are known to be commercially available at present. There are also several otheradvanced concepts under development, which include reactors in the small and very small powerrange, and which could become available in the future.
Coupling of energy sources with desalination systems
Desalination processes which require electricity only (RO or MED/VC) are coupled withelectricity generating plants or with a grid. Energy is transmitted through electrical connections.Processes which require heat and electricity (MED or MSF) are coupled with dual purpose(cogeneration of electricity and heat) plants, or with single purpose (heat only) plants and anadditional electricity supply source (grid or dedicated generating unit). Energy is provided througha heat transfer system (steam supply or hot water circuit) and through electrical connections.
Grid connection
Connecting desalination plants to a suitable electrical grid presents major benefits, as itpermits taking advantage of economics of scale for the integrated power plants and offers high
12
reliability of supply. The use of medium or large size electricity or dual purpose plants is possibleonly if they are integrated into such a grid; otherwise only small size units are feasible.
Siting*
Processes using heat imply the need for adjacent siting of the energy source and thedesalination plant, while separate siting is admissible for processes using electricity only. Fortransmission of electricity, distance is practically no constraint. Separate siting offers the benefit ofindividual and independent site optimization of both the desalination plant and of the energy source,in particular regarding the desirable distance from population centers. Under special conditions andregional circumstances, desalination plants with very small-sized nuclear reactors could be attractive.
Comparative energy costs
With the methodology applied and the assumptions adopted, the economic analysis shows thatlevelized electricity costs of nuclear and fossil fuelled options are in general in the same range.Competitiveness depends very much on unit size and interest rates. For large units (900 MW(e)),nuclear power shows cost advantage versus fossil plants, for medium sizes (300 to 600 MW(e)), costsare similar, while for small sizes (50 MW(e)), fossil power (diesel engine) is favoured. Lower realinterest rates tend to favour the nuclear options, due to their larger capital charge component. Forsingle purpose plants for heat (thermal), energy costs are also in the same range for both alternatives.
Comparative water production costs
Analysis of water production costs shows generally results and trends similar to the energycost analysis, of the use of nuclear and fossil energy sources. Water costs are in the same range forboth energy sources in combination with any desalination process for similar water productioncapabilities. The nuclear alternative is in general favoured for larger sizes and lower interest rates,while fossil is less expensive for smaller sizes and higher interest rates. About one-quarter to one-halfof the water production cost comes from the energy cost component, the remainder corresponding tocapital charges and operation and maintenance costs of the desalination plant, which are practicallyunaffected by the choice of energy supply option.
Overall water costs
Water production costs are in general between $0.7 and $1.1 per m3, for desalination plantscombined with dual purpose (cogeneration of electricity and heat) or electricity (only) generatingplants. Combinations with heat only plants result in considerably higher ($1.2-2.0 per m3) waterproduction costs. When water storage, transport and distribution costs are added and losses included,the final cost of water (to the consumer) will be significantly higher.
Investments
Construction costs of nuclear plants are in all cases higher than those of fossil fuelled units.Investment requirements of desalination plants are higher than the investment required for the energysource (usually by a factor of 2 to 3), considering only the portion attributable to the energy supplyrequired for the desalination plant. Grid connected dual purpose (electricity and heat) plants whichsimultaneously supply the electricity market and the desalination plant, provide about 80 to 90% oftheir production capability to the grid, and the investment corresponding to this portion is attributableto the electricity sector. Overall specific investment requirements of desalination plants, includingthe attributable portion of the energy supply systems, are typically around $1500 to $2500 per m3/dcapacity. In combination with single purpose heat only units, specific investments can be higher andmay reach up to $5000 per m3/d capacity for the smallest sizes considered in the economic analysis.
13
Overall conclusion
The use of nuclear energy as an alternative option to the use of fossil fuelled plants forsupplying energy for seawater desalination is technically feasible, and in general economicallycompetitive for medium to large size units integrated into the electric grid system.
Large electricity generating nuclear power plants, which are integrated into the electricitysupply grid system and which supply electricity to separately located desalination plants using reverseosmosis, offer the most cost advantageous option.
14
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. NEED FOR POTABLE WATER
According to N.B. Ayibotele (Ghana) [1], at the beginning of the 1990s only 25% of theworld's population received adequate water supply services while only 15% received satisfactorysanitation services. The unserved population continues to be at the mercy of inadequate water supplyand water related diseases. Population is expected to increase in most countries and hence the needfor water will likely encompass countries and regions which heretofore have had sufficient waterresources, in addition to those which already face supply problems. The provision of adequatepotable water will be a major challenge for the water sector and, in some sense, water is already ameasure of wealth. GNP and water consumption per capita are related depending on climateconditions, as shown in Figure 1. It is to be noted that 80 litres per capita and per day (LCD)constitute the minimum requirements as recommended by the WHO.
In addition to satisfying the increased potable water requirements resulting from populationgrowth, many countries will face further water shortages because of increased pollution and gradualreduction of existing groundwater and surface water resources. As recent and striking examples, thepotable groundwater level in the Tripoli area has suffered an 80 meters drop and in Beijing the waterlevel is dropping by one meter each year.
Total water available from precipitation is composed of stable runoff and usable groundwater.Worldwide annual stable runoff amounts to about 14 000 km3 in total, of which 9000 km3 is readilyavailable for human use. For groundwater, about 90 000 km3 are in rechargeable aquifers, but onlya fraction of this is easily available, and the remainder being fossil water. In 1980, the total wateruse was about 3600 km3, or 26% of total stable runoff.
Despite the seeming abundance of water, water resources are unfortunately not distributedevenly in the world, individual regions or countries. Water can be transported, but there are practicallimitations to the amount and the distance, for which transport may be technically and economicallyfeasible. The cost of transporting water (through pipelines) some 300 km is in the range of $0.5 to$1 per m3, depending mainly on the rate of interest applied (Annex IV). For longer distances, itappears that large quantities (several million m3/d) could be transported at a cost of about $1 to$2 per m3. Maritime transport (tanker) may cost more than $2 per m3.
North Africa and the Middle East constitute typical examples of regions of the world wherewater is scarce, and where the supply of potable water is becoming increasingly more problematic.In several countries of this region, the current supply of water for domestic use is below theconsumption levels considered adequate for reasonable comfort. For example, according to the waterdemand and supply analysis performed by the countries participating in the North African feasibilitystudy, already an additional 3 million m3/d of potable water supply would be needed to achieveadequate levels of consumption (current consumption is about 14 million m3/d, which is equivalentto an average consumption of about 120 LCD). By the year 2000, the additional potable waterneeded would be more than 10 million m3/d and by the year 2025, 50 million m3/d, taking intoaccount expected population increase and also an increase in per capita consumption levels to about280 LCD.
Specific water production cost (i.e. $/m3), as well as the capital investment cost, are possiblythe main constraints to the implementation of large scale programmes to supply the demand forpotable water which complies with the necessary quality requirements.
The availability of drinking water is essential to sustain life. It must be provided at any cost,and if no less expensive water sources are available and the sea is accessible, then seawaterdesalination becomes the choice. The basic drinking water requirements, however, constitute only
15
WATER rONSUMPTION OF HOUSFHDlPS PER CAPITA [1/d]1000 i—— -
500
MINIMUMREQUIREMENT
DF WHO
TROPICALCDUNTPIFS
SUBTROPICALCOUNTRY S
COUNTRIES W I T HMODERATE CLIMATE
500 1000 5000 10000 50000
GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT PER CAPITA GNPC t * / o ]
FIG. 1. Potable water consumption of households (Source: Wangnick Consulting).
a fraction (about 1%) of what is considered a reasonable level of potable water consumption forhouseholds. The cost of seawater desalination does not present a barrier for drinking water orhousehold water consumption needed to ensure a satisfactory level of sanitation services.
Potable water supply for industrial use constitutes an essential input for each industry, withwater costs having relatively small effects on the industry's economic viability and final product cost.If no other water sources are available, the cost of seawater desalination should not be an impedimentto industrial use. It is to be noted that in Algeria, for example, more than 90% of the installeddesalination capacity goes to providing potable water to industries.
Agriculture is another sector which may require potable water for irrigation, but for thisapplication the cost of desalinating seawater does represent a major constraint. With currenttechnology and costs, the use of desalinated seawater for irrigation is not viable economically, exceptin extreme situations and on a small scale. Should this (irrigation) application eventually becomecompetitive, it would open up a very large market indeed.
2.2. NEED FOR SEAWATER DESALINATION
Arid areas have in general few untapped potential water resources and costly investments willbe needed for the development of new potable water supply options such as improvements to waterdistribution infrastructure, water transport from surplus to shortage areas, brackish water desalination,new dams, water treatment and reuse facilities, and seawater desalination.
As the less expensive supply alternatives are exhausted, seawater desalination becomes theoption to be chosen for locations within a reasonable transport distance from the sea (a few hundredkilometers). Seawater is indeed the largest water source available (Figure 2) and accounts for 98.3%of the world's water resources. Compared with existing fresh water natural resources, its availabilityis essentially unlimited, and it is still reasonably unpolluted except in specific areas. All other optionsinvolve a limited water potential.
Regions which have exhausted their less expensive potable water supply options have alreadyturned to seawater desalination. By the end of 1991, about 15.6 million m3/d desalination capacitywas contracted worldwide. Desalination of seawater can, in principle, enable the Middle East andNorth African countries as well as other arid countries to meet their growing water needs, becauseof their ready access to the sea. In fact, about 76% of the current desalination capacity of the worldis in the Middle East (70%) and North Africa (6%) [2].
It is expected that the demand for desalinated seawater will increase in those countries inwhich it is already used and that it will appear in other regions and countries.
Demand forecasts for potable water for household use and for industry can be estimated withreasonable accuracy, based on expected population growth rates, desirable consumption levels andindustrial production. However, demand forecasts for the more expensive desalinated seawater aremuch more difficult and uncertain, because of the demand-price elasticity. There are usually variousoptions available for providing potable water, including for example shifting from irrigation tohousehold uses as has been done recently in Israel, and comparative costs do have a major influenceon the choice.
There are no worldwide forecasts available on the demand for desalination, but if it isassumed that the installed desalination capacity will increase following the trend of the past decade,then there should be about 20 million mVd capacity in operation by the year 2000, doubling eachdecade thereafter if current trends are maintained.
Long term forecasts, however, are highly speculative. Any major technological breakthroughor progress, such as for example an advanced desalination process involving substantial reductions
17
SEA WATER
1/60
1/2000
ICE
FRESH WATER
WATERSEA WATERSWEET WATERICEFRESH WATER
Amount of water[cubic meter]
1 40E + 181.38E+18240E+16233E-H6710E-H4
Share In [%l(1 level)
1009831.7
1.660.05
(2. level)
10097.03.0
Share(absolute)
1
1/60
1/2000
FIG. 2. Water resources on earth.
in water production costs, would of course change prevailing conditions and result in higher growthrates, in particular through opening up the agricultural market. Though such substantial costreductions are not expected to occur during the next few years, they might be achieved in 10- 20years.
2.3. REASONS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGYAll reasons which have led in the past to the development of nuclear power, and which prevail
at present in those countries which have a nuclear power porgamme, are applicable to the choice ofnuclear power as an energy source for seawater desalination plants. These reasons include theproduction of less expensive energy as compared to other options, overall energy supplydiversification, conservation of limited fossil fuel resources, promotion of technological developmentand, lately, environmental protection through the reduction of emissions causing climate change andacid rain which originate from the burning of fossil fuels. The latter reason might be enforced dueto proposed CO2 taxes.
On the other hand, the reasons which have led countries to reject the nuclear option or to slowdown their nuclear power programmes also apply to the use of nuclear energy for seawater
18
desalination. Political or public opposition, concerns about nuclear safety, lack of financial resources,lack of necessary infrastructures, are some of these reasons.
The decision regarding the use or rejection of nuclear power are country specific, and viewsof countries may be different and may also change in time. International concerns and politicalconsiderations also have an influence on the decisions of individual countries.
In addition to the above mentioned reasons which apply in general to nuclear energy, thereare some particular aspects specific to the use of nuclear reactors for supplying energy to desalinationplants, which favour nuclear energy as compared to fossil energy. These are the following:
Up to now, nuclear energy has been rarely used for supplying the heat market, which is verylarge. Supplying desalination plants with heat could be an opportunity to penetrate furtherthis market.
Desalination plants using thermal processes require energy in the form of heat, which in thecase of dual purpose plants is partly heat that otherwise would be rejected to the environment.The size of a dual purpose plant is generally determined by the demand for electricity, andthe water production is accordingly maximized. For a given electricity demand, a nuclearreactor combined with a desalination plant will supply substantially more water productioncapacity than a fossil plant. Depending on the type of reactor, water production capacity mayreach up to 80% higher values. One of the reasons is that all the rejected heat in a nuclearpower system goes to the condensing exhaust steam from where it can be removed, while infossil systems at least 20% of the rejected heat is thrown directly into the atmosphere.
In water cooled reactors, the steam at the lowest pressure level expands with a high moisturecontent, which causes energy losses. These might be reduced by replacing this expansionstage by thermal distillation.
Installation of power plants for supplying the combined demand of electricity and potablewater can make advantage of the economics of scale and the overall system load factor ofsuch plants would also improve. Nuclear power can benefit more from these effects thanfossil power, and this will ultimately lead to lower costs to the customers.
Finally, the preferred mode of operation of nuclear power plants is base load, and this is alsothe preferred mode of operation of the desalination plants, which have to supply a constantdemand for potable water. Consequently, combining them would be to their mutualadvantage.
19
3. DESALINATION PROCESSES
3.1. GENERAL
For the purposes of the present report, the concept of "desalination plant" applies to a scopecorresponding to a complete installation capable of producing desalted seawater, including waterintake and outlet structures, the processing plant which may include several desalination units, andall on-site auxiliary installations needed for proper operation and maintenance, except the energysource. The limits of the concept are the input connections for the supply of energy and the outletfor the potable water produced. Water storage, transport and distribution facilities are not included.The reason why the energy source has been excluded, is to facilitate a comparative economicevaluation of different energy supply options. The concept of "large scale" as applied to desalinationplants in the present report corresponds to production capacities higher than 50 000 irrVd.
The available commercial processes which currently appear as the most interesting for largescale water production are:
Reverse osmosis (RO);
Multieffect distillation (MED), either with external heat source or with internal heat pumping,i.e. vapour compression (MED/VC); and
Multistage flash distillation (MSF).
These processes have been selected for consideration in the present report. They are wellknown, and detailed technical descriptions are not considered necessary. They are discussed in [3]and a summary of their main characteristics is presented in Table 1.
While RO and MED/VC consume only electrical energy, MSF and most large MED plantsuse mainly thermal energy as well as electrical energy (the use of mechanical energy instead ofelectrical energy is possible). Each process has a proven record of industrial applications for severalyears at many locations worldwide and in different unit and plant sizes. The historical developmentof desalination in terms of the total installed capacity ordered is shown in Figure 3 and as a functionof the type of process used in Figure 4. Actual production capacity is considerably lower, as someplants are still under construction while others have been shut down. Production also depends on theoperation mode and plant availability. In 1970, more than 60% of the desalination plants orderedwere MSF plants, MED represented about 20% and RO 4%. In 1991, RO accounted for about 50%of the desalination plant capacity ordered (in particular for brackish water), MED accounted for about6% and MSF for 33%.
Other processes for seawater desalination, such as electrodialysis, ion exchange, freezing,hydrate and humidification-dehumidification may appear in the future. At this time, however, nonecan be identified as close to large scale commercialization and they have not been analysed in detail.
According to current trends and expectations for the next decade and possibly beyond, ROand MED will likely be the dominating processes for desalination, with MSF retaining part of themarket. Other processes would still need substantial development, before they could take a majorshare of the desalination market. The basic design assumptions for the selected processes arecontained in Table 2.
3.2. WATER QUALITY
Water quality is an important parameter. In the present study, the European Community (EC)and the World Health Organization (WHO) drinking water standards have been used as a basis. The
20
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SELECTED DESALINATION PROCESSES
Energy consumptionel /mech (kW(e)-hfm')thermal (kW(Ui) • h/m>)
thermal energy (kW(e) h/m')
Total equivalent energyconsumption (kW(e) • h/m1)
Possible unit size (m'/d)
Limiting factors
Total capita] costs
Fully automatic andunattended operation
Tolerance to operator faults
Tolerance to changing seawater composition and polluuon
Maintenance requirements
Spare pans or replacementpans requirements
Heal transfer area
Failure potentialif corrosion occurs
Scaling potentiaJ when solutesin seiwater are aboveprecipitation level
On site assembly/erectionrequirements
Engineering requirements(quantitative)
Manufacturing requirements
Ratio between product andtotal seawater How
Experience available
Potential for furtherimprovements
RO
5 - 7none
none
5 - 7
24000
pumpsvacuum units
lowest
possible
low
very low
high
high(delicate, large pumpsexpensive membranereplacement every3 - 5 years)
not applicable
high(some membranes aresensitive to dissolvedmeuls)
high
low
low
high(especially formembranes)
0 3 0 5
medium
high
MSF
4-655 - 120
8- 18
12-24
60000
pumps, valves
highest(ai same GOX)
possible
medium
medium
medium
medium(large special pumps)
high
medium
medium
medium
medium
medium
0 08 - 0 15
highest
low(at technologicallimit)
MED
2 - 2 530- 120
2 5 - 1 0
4 5 - 1 2 5
60000
erection and constructionaspects, plant reliability
low
possible
high
high
low
low(only small pumpsrequired)
low
low
low
medium
medium
low
01 025
high
medium
MED/VC
7 - 9none
none
7 - 9
24000
compressors
medium
possible
medium
high Maintenance
medium
high(vapour compressorrequired)
low
low
low
medium
high
medium
0 4 - 0 6
medium
medium
21
M l t Ll l Af Af II Y [ r > 3
Lri f PUM WAMdl l l i K K L A U S ,IDA wnpi nwiDE DL A L I I M G P L A N T S INVFNIUPI
1971 1971 1975 1977 19/9 19R3f DNTPAf T Y L A P
FIG 3 Worldwide cumulative desalination capacity (daily capacity of all land based desalting plants contracted cumulatively and capableof producing > 100 m3/d per unit of fresh water) (Source Wangnick Consulting).
PROPORTION (X)
90
80
70
60
50
40 -I
30
20 -|
10
iïflT
1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991CONTRACT YEAR
I OTHER
I ME MULTI EFFECT + VC VAPOUR COMPRESSIONI RD REVERSE OSMOSIS + MS MEMBRANE SOFTENINGI MSF MULTI STAGE FLASH EVAPORATION
FROM WANGNICK, KLAUS1992 IDA WORLDWIDE DESALTING PLANTS INVENTORYREPORT NO iePUBLISHED BY WANGNICK CONSULTING
FIG. 4. World\vide market share of desalination processes (proportion of processes of all land based desalting plants capable of pduring >100 m3/d of fresh water vs contract year) (Source: Wangnick Consulting).
>ro-
K)
TABLE 2 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR DESALINATION PLANT DESIGNS
Parameter Unit Reference value
Seawater salinity TDS ppm 38 500(average Mediterraneancondition)
Seawater alcalmity (CaCOj) ppm 125
Seawater temperature range °C 14 - 31
Seawater average temperature °C 22.5
Seawater temperature for °C 18reference RO and MED/VC designs
Seawater temperature for °C 27reference MED and MSF designs
Supply pressure to potable bar 10water network
EC water qua l i ty standardCl ppm 25Conductivity jtS/cm 400
WHO water quality standardCI ppm 250TDS ppm 1000
EC standards are very stringent and the WHO standards are more relaxed. Both standards arepresented in Table 3. In the same table, the standards of various countries are added for comparison.The main differences between the EC standards and other standards are the low content in chloridesand the total dissolved solid (TDS) content. The EC standards specify 25 ppm for Cl and 400 /iS/cmfor conductivity, which results in approximately 200 ppm TDS. The WHO recommendations of1984/1985 specify 250 ppm for chlorides and 1000 ppm for TDS as the "highest desirable level".The WHO level for chlorides is based only on "taste considerations" while the EC level takes intoaccount health aspects and the fact that an average daily dose of 6 g of chloride (a value at which nonegative health effects are expected) is already taken with salted food.
24
TABLE 3. STANDARDS FOR DRINKING WATER
>33°uUJ
1—u15
LJ
U
13;J
$
C/l
zLJ
»—
£iuCJ
u<ss
CI
rUJD
>-01§uLJZ
3S
WHO1984(13
EEC 198080/778/EVG
USA JAPAN(293
GERMANYTVD
12/90
CANADA03/87(35)
UNIT IICONSTITUENT || GV || RZ(103 I ZHKC113 |EMK(123||MCLC313|| ZHK II ZHK |[MACC36)J
•c-
TCUNTU (6)
ng/luS/cn
ng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/l
ng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/lng/l
ug/lug/lug/lug/tug/lug/lug/lug/lug/lug/tug/lug/lug/lug/lug/lug/lug/lug/lug/lug/lug/lug/lug/lug/lug/lug/l
TEMPERATUREpHTASTE AND ODOURCOLOURTURBIDITYCHLORDBENZENES [23DETERGENTSOXYGEN DISSOLVEDCONDUCTIVITYTDS C33TOTAL HARDNESSALKALINITYCALCIUMMAGNESIUMSTRONTIUMSODIUMPOTASSIUMAMMONIUMPHOSPHATEIRONMANGANESEZINCCOPPERALUMINIUMCHLORIDESULFATEHYDROGENCARBONATEHYDROGEN SULFIDEANTIMONYARSENICBARIUMBERYLLIUMBORONCADMIUMCHROMIUMCYANIDEFLUOR I DELEADMERCURYNICKELNITRATENITRITEKJELDAHL-NITROGEN (193OXIDABILITY KMn04SELENIUMSILVERALDRIN AND DIELDRINBENZENEBENZOCA3PYRENECARBON TETRACHLDRIDECHLORDANECHLOROFORMCHLOROPHENOLS2,4-DDDT1,2-DICHLORETHANE1,1-DICHLORETHENEHEPTACHLOR (91HEXACHLOROBENZENEGAMMA-HCH (LINDANE)METHOXYCHLORPENTACHLOROPHENOLTETRACHLOROETHENETRICHLORETHENE2,4,6-TRlCHLOROPHENOLPESTICIDES (SINGLE)PESTICIDES (TOTAL)POL AR HYDROC (233OIL T22I1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENETOT TRIHALOMETH C333TETRACHLORMETHANE
NGV[4365-85
(33153
NGVNGVNGV
1000500(73
200
03015102
250400
C83
003NGVNGV
000500501150050001
NGV10
NGV
001NGV
00310001303
30NGV
1001
1003010013
3010103010
65-8501
04(143
400
10030
SO1000504003aoa0101005
2525
01
1
23
2
100(213
25
20(13)4(14)
02(203
1500
50
(ISO)1205502005
02(200)250
C173001003
0005005005150050001005
500115001001
05(181
010502001
75Xsa-t
60(15}30(163
65-85
500
0300551
250250
0051
001005
20050002
10
001003
100
5
4100
10C34
7100
68-86
5Z
500300
030311
200
003
001005
NTD08
NTD
) 10)
10
5(183
£565-95
13
2000
40050
15012055020055302
250240
0010011
10005005005150040001005
500115001001
05(183
>
) 10(30))
0210
3
1565-85
155
500
0300551
250500
0051
5000500502150050001
101
00100307
7
2(18)10030
3
4100
10C343
100
350
î EvK."cStESfi<rvïuS*JH COMC£NTRAnw S& •. W^fflfo£iS*ySï«[ èf^L fo*-5>ÎS$!8IJ&$fà CDNCCNTSAT™B HAC • MAXlftjH ACCfMAILE CONCENTRATION KfD • NOTTflTE «TtCTCO LllT * BfcANIt iONStlTUENTj K NOT CtMtCTE H
25
TABLE 3 (com.)
CIJ = GUIDELINES FOR DRINKING WATER QUALITY, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, GENEVA 198412) - AND CHLOROPHENOLSC3) = TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDSC4) = NGV * NO GUIDELINE VALUE SETC5] = INOFFENSIVE TO HOST CONSUMERSC6) = NEPHELDMETRIC TURBIDITY UNITC7) = AS CoC03C8: = NOT DETECTABLE BY CONSUMERSC9) - AND HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDEC103 - RECOMMENDED VALUE -Cin - MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATIONC13) - NECESSARY MINIMUM CONCENTRATIONC131 = ng/l Pt/CoCM) = JACKSON UNITSCIS] « ng/l CaC16) • ng/l HC03C17) • DRGANOLEPTIC NOT DETECTABLEC18) • PHCNOLS C6H50HC19) = EXCEPT N OF ND2 AND N03C20) = SURFACE ACTIVE COMPOUNDSC21] = BY CHLOROFORM EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDSC28) =• DISSOLVED OR EMULSIFIED CARBON HYDROGENSC83) * FLUORANTHEN, BENZO-3.4-FLUORANTHEN. BENZO-1U2-FLUORANTHEH BENZO-3.4-PYREN
BENZO-U2-PERYLEN, ANDEN-<L2,3-cd>-PYRENC29) - INFORMATION FROM WATER RE-USE PROMOTION CENTER, JAPANC30) = ORGANIC COMPOUNDS OF CHLORINEi U,I-TRICHLDRETHAN, TRICHLORETHAN, TETRACHLORETHEN,
D1CHLOROMETHANE, TETRACHLOROMETHANEC311 = MCL REGULATED MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELC32) « DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS UNDER THE STATE DRINKING WATER ACT, DECEMBER 1989
PLEASE NOTE THAT NEW CONTAMINANT LEVELS HAVE BEEN DESCRIBEDINCLUDING MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT GOALS THAT ARE MUCH MORE STRINGENT THAN C31)
C33) = INCLUDES' CHLOROFORM, BROMOFORM, BROMDIOCHLOROMETHANE AND DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANEC3«) = 2,«,5-TP (SILVEX)C35) = CANADIAN WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENT MINISTERS[361 = HAC MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONC37] = TOV VERORDNUNG UEBER TRINKWASSER UND UEBER WASSER FUER LEBENSMITTELBETRIEBE
CTRINKWASSERVERQRDNUNG) 12121990
Source: Wangnick Consulting.
Also, the low tolerable level for various types of organic pollutants, especially for pesticidesand for certain metallic compounds, makes the EC standards more severe than other standards. InSection 6 (Economic Assessment) the effects of the EC and WHO standards on potable water costsare analysed. For plants using the RO process, water costs in compliance with WHO standards arelower than with EC standards, since a single stage system suffices.
All commercial processes selected for this study are able to produce potable water complyingwith the EC standards. To obtain the low Cl level, a two-stage system is required in a RO plant.Depending on the membrane selected, the product water from the first stage will have between 150ppm Cl or more. The product water of the first stage is treated in a second stage, which results ina level of less than 25 ppm Cl and 40 ppm TDS for the product water of the second stage, which hasto be treated to raise the hardness to the required level.
The water produced by an MED or MSF plant is practically "pure water" with about 5 to25 ppm TDS. The posttreatment for the water produced includes a hardening step and pumpingthrough an activated charcoal filter. Organic pollutants contained in the product water (for examplein case of oil pollution) will be removed by the activated charcoal filter.
Limiting values for radioactive contamination of the product water are not yet covered byinternational standards. These limits have to be set by national regulatory authorities. However, theWHO recommends limits on added alpha activity (0.1 Bq/1) and beta activity (1 Bq/1) based on theconsumption of two litres of drinking water per day.
26
3.3. ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF SEA WATER DESALINATION
The energy required to remove one unit mass of water from a salt water solution is equal tothe free energy difference of pure water and salt water [4]. Depending on the salt content, theabsolute minimum energy required for desalination is about 0.75 kW-h/m3 of product water,regardless of the process used (the energy is given in electrical energy). In any desalination process,however, certain irréversibilités occur due to finite temperature differences, friction losses,non-equilibrium losses, membrane resistances, pump efficiencies, heat losses, etc. Hence, theminimum energy consumption is more typically in the range of 2.0 to 2.5 kW-h/m3. The energyrequired for available commercial processes is in practice higher, as discussed in the followingsections.
3.3.1. RO energy consumption
The RO energy consumption depends on a variety of factors, such as seawater salinity,product quality, recovery rate (i.e. the ratio of product to seawater), membrane properties, seawatertemperature and implementation of energy recovery [3]. Usually, the energy required by the ROprocess is in the form of electricity, and therefore the specific energy consumption does not dependon the energy source used. However, for some applications, steam or diesel driven pumps are morepractical.
In Table 4, the specific energy consumption data for the various cases considered aresummarized. When WHO water quality is acceptable, specific energy consumption is nearly 13%less than for EC standards.
3.3.2. MED energy consumption
Most large MED plants need energy input in the form of both thermal (low temperature heat)and electrical energy. The latter is only a small portion of the total energy input and is mainly usedfor pump operation.
Ideally, a distillation plant with 1 evaporator, or so called effect, needs 1 kg of steam per kgof water produced, with 2 effects the value is reduced by a factor of 2 and so on. In practice, themultiplication factor is reduced owing to unavoidable energy losses. Depending on variousparameters (non equilibrium losses, boiling point elevation, heat transfer area installed, etc.) it ispossible to obtain approximate ranges of gain-output ratio (GOR), defined as kg of product water perkg of steam, as shown in Figure 5. Current MED plants usually have a GOR in the range of 6 to12, some even up to 24.
The choice of the number of effects, and hence the GOR, depends in part on the operatingtemperature difference across the MED system, in other words, on the difference between the heatsource steam temperature and the sink temperature. For a dual purpose plant (cogeneration ofelectricity and heat), the heat source temperature is determined, for example, by the exhaust pressureof the backpressure turbine. For single purpose heat only plants, the heat source temperature isdetermined directly by the boiler or the reactor. For the analyses in this report, the sink temperatureis the seawater temperature which is taken as 27°C for the selected MED design in the Mediterraneanarea. This conservative value (for MED) gives a practical condensing temperature of 33°C. Thepertinent design parameters for the reference systems considered in this report are given in Table 5.
Besides the total temperature difference, the GOR depends on the number of effects, whichin turn depends on the temperature difference between effects. The average temperature differencebetween effects of a 14 effect plant is assumed to be 2.3°C. Several such plants have been built withsimilar parameters as in Table 5. The 17 effect plant is a low temperature multieffect distillation(LTMED) plant operating at brine temperatures not exceeding 70°C and steam temperatures of about
27
TABLE 4. REFERENCE RO SPECIFIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION DATA1'
(kW(e)-h/m3)
Water standard EC WHO
Power plant location Stand alone Contiguous Stand alone Contiguous
Number of stages in water plant
Seawater and seawaterbooster pump
Pretreatment including chemicals
High pressure pump 1st stage
High pressure pump 2nd stage
Power recovery turbine (pelton)
2
058
0 18
579
0.78
-1 98
2
047
0 18
5.79
078
-1 98
1
0.58
0.18
5.79
--
-1 98
1
0.47
0.18
5.79
-
-1.98
Inter im storage pumping andpost treatment 0 25 0.25 0 25 0 25
General auxi l ia r ies Ü 25 0 25 0 25 0.25
Pumping of product to consumeor distant mam storage11
030 030 030 0.30
Total power consumption 615 6 04 5.37 5 26
" Recovery ratio 50%, this ratio does not contain the losses in the pretrcatment.bl 10 bar at water plant l imit
72-74°C. Above these temperatures, scaling and corrosion are more intensive, which the LTMEDprocess is designed to minimize. The MED can, however, operate at higher temperatures, usingmore expensive materials with more effects. The average values for 22 and for 27 effect plants arerespectively 3.1 °C and 3.2°C. The temperature difference is the main controlling factor for the heattransfer area and therefore for the cost as well.
In addition to thermal energy, electricity is required for MED plants. The inputs of electricalenergy required for the reference plants are given in Table 6. The effect of the GOR on the specificelectricity consumption is small. With current technology a reduction of the electricity consumptionin the range of 10-15% might be achieved, but this would result in higher investment costs andultimately in higher water production costs.
3.3.3. MED/VC energy consumption
There is also a version of MED, where heat is internally supplied by vapour compression(VC) heat pumping. Heat pumping is a well proven technology, hundreds of low temperature unitsare successfully in operation. This MED/VC process consumes only electrical energy for the internalheat pumping, like RO. At present, the MED/VC unit capacity is below 6000 m3/d. Obviously,
28
0 5 10SOURCE- Ingenieurbuero G F TUSEL
15 20 25Number of effects —
t
30 35
(DO)CO
CD
l0>Q.
CD*^
ECO<D«3
FIG. 5. Gain-output ratio vs number of effects in MED plants.
TABLE 5 REFERENCE DESIGN PARAMETERS OF DISTILLATION PROCESSES
Energy GORsource
Unit °C
Steam atexit ofturbine
Temperatureat inlet ofbrine heater
°C
Top brinetemp
°C
Number of Overalleffects tempor stages" difference
°C
AverageA Tper effect
°C
Specific Energy Consumption
Electricity Heat
kW(e)-h/m3 kW(th)-h/m 3
Ratiocooling/seawater1"
m'/m3
MED
Nuclear 1 1 5Fossil 12 2Nuclear 17Fossil 17Nuclear 21Fossil 21
7474109103129123
6772102102122122
6570100100120120
14+11622+12327+128
323768688787
2 32 33 1303 23 1
2502.302422.222.352 15
56052 8385394303307
98 57755
MED/VC
Nuclearor fossil
68 8 19 2 4 76 2
MSF'
Nuclear 1 1 5Fossil 12 5
135129
128128
125125
4242
8888
2 12 1
5.250
546553
99
•' At a seawater temperature of 27"Ck) Including cooling water for auxilaries like vacuum systemc) The MSF plant is of the once through type
TABLE 6. REFERENCE MED AND MSF SPECIFIC ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
(kW(e)-h/m3)
GOR/heat source"'
Seawater pumping and filtering
Desalination plantb>
Interim storage pumpingand posttreatment
General auxiliaries
Product pumping to consumeror distant main storage0'
Total electricity consumption
MED
11.5/N 12.2/F 17/N 17/F 21/N
0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3
1.25 1.05 1.27 1.07 1.30
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
2.50 2.30 2.42 2.22 2.35
MED/VC MSF
21/F 11.5/N 12.5/N
0.3 0.15 0.5 0.5
1.10 6.7 3.95 3.75
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
2.15 7.6 5.2 5.0
a) N = Nuclear; F = Fossil.b) Including safety circuit for nuclear heat.c) 10 bar at plant limit.
multiple units can be incorporated in one plant, having the economic advantages of series production,learning effect and higher plant reliability and availability. Larger MED/VC plants (up to24 000 m3/d) can be built, because significant progress has been achieved in the development of large,efficient vapor compressors during the last few years.
Up to 90% of the total energy required in the MED/VC process is required for thecompression system, which works nowadays with a 0.75 compression efficiency at temperaturesbelow 70°C and with more than a 0.8 compression efficiency for temperatures above 100°C. Therest of the energy is for pumping, venting and auxiliaries. Total temperature difference per effectrange from below 2°C to 4°C. As shown in Table 1, the total energy consumption in the advancedlarge MED/VC is between 7-9 kW(e)-h/m3.
The compression system, consisting of one or several compressors in parallel and/or in series,may be driven by electric motors, diesel engines, gas turbines or steam turbines. Better results canbe achieved when it is possible to use the waste heat of the driving system.
Reference design parameters and specific energy consumption are given in Tables 5 and 6.
MED/VC and RO technologies can be integrated into hybrid plants, both consumingelectricity, to combine the specific advantages of each. Such plants, however, have not been analysedin the present report.
3.3.4. MSF energy consumption
As with the MED process, the energy requirements of the MSF process are low temperatureheat and some electricity, with heat being the main portion.
The relationship between temperature, GOR, number of stages, investment costs and specificenergy consumption is similar to MED. However, the values of the specific energy consumption aresomewhat higher. A typical GOR-8 plant would require some 82 kW(th) • h/m3, and a GOR-10 plantsome 65 kW(th)-h/m3. The GOR has a practical limit of about 12 for a MSF plant, whichcorresponds to about 55 kW(th)-h/m3.
In addition to the heat consumed, the specific electricity consumption of an MSF plant wouldbe around 5 kW(e) • h/m3, i.e. about twice what is consumed by a typical MED plant. The main dataand the various electricity inputs for the selected MSF plants (once through with a GOR of 11.5 and12.5) are presented in Tables 5 and 6.
3.4. BY-PRODUCTS
The overall economics of desalination plants could be enhanced by recovering certain elementscontained in seawater. These elements, namely NaCl, Mg and Br, are now produced on an industrialscale to a large extent from seawater. The removal of NaCl, Mg and Br requires, in addition to agood prefiltration, a preconcentration step. Prefiltration and partial preconcentration are included inevery desalination step and the blowdown of the desalination processes can be used directly for furtherprocessing, eliminating the need for a separate intake and pretreatment. As all these processesconsume significant amounts of electricity and also heat, the combination of a power and desalinationcomplex is an interesting application.
Of the many other elements dissolved in seawater (i.e. Ça, U, Ag, etc.) none are actuallyrecovered. Many studies have been conducted, but none have indicated favourable economicconditions.
32
4. ENERGY SOURCES
4.1. GENERAL
A comparative economic evaluation of all energy sources for desalination requires comparinga wide range of available options, including nuclear power, fossil fuels, hydro, renewable energies,waste recovery, etc. This report focusses on nuclear energy, for which the main alternative is fossilfuel. Other energy sources are reviewed in a general way, and not considered in the comparativeeconomic evaluation.
In the following, all practical sizes are covered for both nuclear and fossil fuelled plants.Very small plants, however, have not been analysed in detail because the scope of the study waslimited. A distinction is made between single purpose plants, which produce only electricity or onlyheat, and dual purpose (cogeneration) plants, which provide electricity and heat at the same time (see"Definitions" as used in this report).
Regarding fossil fuelled plants, the study considers in particular coal, oil and gas electricitygenerating and combined cycle units, gas turbines and diesels. They are available from manysupppliers in the world. It must be emphasized that coal, oil and gas fired plants are well proventechnologies and can achieve with good maintenance high load factors. They offer considerableflexibility, since the boilers can use different types of fuel.
4.2. FUEL-OIL OR GAS PLANTS
Single cycle gas turbines are very flexible energy sources for electric power supply with unitsizes up to 200 MW(e). They can be built in a very short time, have low specific capital costs, andan efficiency of about 32% and fuel costs dominate in the electricity costs. They are used especiallyfor peak load or load following modes of operation. Fuel-oil or gas fired steam-electrical plants areusually considered economical for units over 50 MW(e). Combined cycle gas/steam plants up toabout 600 MW(e) can operate with up to 50% overall efficiency. The higher technology levelrequired for these plants limits the number of plant suppliers. The demand for such plants continuesto be high in view of their excellent performance.
4.3. COAL FIRED PL A NTS
The large infrastructure needed for coal transportation and storage makes coal fired stationseconomically attractive only for sizes above 200 MW(e), provided average world coal prices remainat the present level (i.e. about $50 per t FOB), or at locations where inland transportation costs arenot excessively high. The economics of coal fired plants are affected by strict pollution standards andby the large investments needed for the required infrastructure. Some improvements may be achievedthrough fluidized bed combustion, but a decrease in present investment costs of coal fired plants isnot expected.
4.4. DIESEL ENGINES
Diesel generators have made significant gains in energy efficiency and can be used as singleunits up to about 50 MW(e). Low speed diesel (LSD) engines have been built with efficienciesreaching more than 50% and small high speed diesel engines have efficiencies higher than 30%.While high and medium speed diesel engines require diesel fuel of good quality, the LSD engines canbe operated with a wide range of fuels, i.e. crude oil, natural gas, heavy fuel (bunker C) in additionto diesel fuel. Even tests with coal slurries have been successfully performed.
While high speed diesel engines need a high degree of maintenance, LSD engines have verylow maintenance requirements owing to recent design and material improvements. Experience showsthat high availabilities can be reached by land based LSD engines. If proper antipollution devices are
33
TABLE 7. NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR SEAWATER DESALINATION»»
Reactor Country
A. Reactors producing heal
1) AST 500 CIS
2) GEYSER Switzerland
3) HR 200 China
4) L-M CIS
5) SES-IO Canada
6) RKM CIS
7) RUTA CIS
8) THERMOS France
9) TR1GA USAPowerSystem
B Reactors for cogeneratmn
1) ATS-150 CIS
2) HTR Germany
Type
PWRintegratedvessel
PWRpool
PWRintegratedvessel
PWRvessel
PWRintegratedpool
LWGRmicromodule
PWRintegratedpool
PWRintegratedpool
PWRvessel
PWRintegratedvessel
HTRmodularvessel
C Reactors generating electricity
1) AP-600 USA PWRvessel
Sizeheat/output
500 MW(th)
23 MW(th)
200 MW(th)
80MW(th)
10 MW(th)
150 MW(th)
20 MW(th)
100 or 150MW(th)
64 MW(th)
536 MW(th)(maxl80MW(e))per unit
200 MW(ih)(max80 MW(e))per module
1933 MW(th)(600 MW(e))
Fuel Max(enrich- steamment) temp
(°C)M
UO, 160(2%)
UZrH 148(19 7ft)
UO, 140(£3*)
UO, 300CS.10%)
UO. 95(25*)
UO, 190(2*)
UO, 80(35*)
UO, 137ÜL35«)
UZrH 115(197%)
UO. 290(3%)
UO, 530(78*)
UO, 271(36*)
Primary Primary Statustemp pressure
(°C) (MPa)
141/205 20 -based on pilot plants and WER experience- design completed- design review performed by IAEA
155/166 072 -based on established TRJGA research reactor- thermal hydraulic full size test carried out- basic design completed
135/200 2 2 - based on 5MW(th) prototype plantbeing operated since 1989
- basic design completed- safety review underway
278/372 12 8 - based on established nuclear poweredicebreakers (KLT-40)
- special design for barge-mounting available- detail design completed and approved
by regulatory bodies
73/95 0 35 - evolved from 20 kW(th) research reactor- based on 1 MW(th) prototype plant being
operated since 1987, safety review underway
138/265 7 85 - based on experience with lightwater graphite moderated reactors
• detail design completed
65/95 0 24 - based on experience with research reactors- basic design completed
131/144 1 • 1 1 - based on established French PWR- basic design completed
1 82/2 1 5 30 - based on establ tshed TRIG Aresearch reactor plants
- design processing
265/340 16 - based on pilot test plants- detail design completed
250/700 6 0 - based on construction and operationexperiences with AVR plant
- detail design to be completed- safety assessment by German licensing
authorities performed-special design for barge-mounting a\ ailable
280/316 155 - based on the established W-PWR design- design processing to meet safety certification
by end of 1994
34
TABLE 7. (CONTINUED)
Reactor Country TypeSize Fuel Max Primary Primary Statusheat/output (enrich- steam temp pressure
ment) temp(»O» (oQ (MPa)
2) ATU-2 CIS LWGRihannel
3) BWR-90 Sweden BWRvessel
4) Candu-3 Canada HWRpressurelubes
125 MW(lh)(40 MW(e))
2350 MW(th)(720 MW(e))
1439 MW(th)(450 MW(e))
UO, 170 260/283 67(3-3 6%)
UO, 286 286 70C£35%)
nat 260 260/310 99UO,
- based on prototype EGP-6,1st stage of Bilibinsk heat plant
- regulatory review « agreed withGOSATOMNADZOR
- based on the established BWR-75- design completed
- based on established CANDU- detail design to be completed• concept approval by 1993
5) CAREM Argentin» PWRmodularintegratedvessel
100 MW(ih) UO,(25 MW(e)) (39%)
286 278/326 12 25 - basic design completed- detailed design underway
6) E-49 CIS PWR 356MW(th) UO, 300 273/323 160 - draft project of floating plant (2 units)vessel (70MW(e)) (21%)
7) MHTGR USA HTR ISOOMW(th) UO, 540 260/704 71modular (692 MW(e)) (_£ 19 9«)(4 units)vessel
- based on construction and operationexperiences with Fort St Vram Plant
- basic design completed- preliminary safety assessment by US-NRC
performed
8) NP-300 France
9) PHWR-220 India
10) PHWR-500 India
11) PIUS Sweden
12) SIR UK
13) 4 S Japan
14) WER- Poland/440/213 CIS
PWRvessel
HWR(2 units)pressure tubes
HWR(2 units)pressure tubes
PWRintegratedpool
PWRintegratedpool
LMRfastreactor pool
PWRintegratedpool
950 MW(lh)(300 MW(e))
l580MW(th)(440 MW(e))
3460 MW(th)(1000 MW(e))
2000 MW(th)(640 MW(e)>
1000 MW(th)(320 MW(e))
125 MW(th)(48 MW(e))
1375 MW(th)(424 MW(e))
UO. 293(4%)
nat 251UO,
nat 253UO,
UO, 2700£35%)
UO, 298C£4%)
U, Pu met 45500%)
UO, 259(i.36%)
278/312 155 - based on prototype plant CAP- general design completed
249/293 8 7 - based on commercial operation ofpower plants
- standardized for commercial use- review by regulatory bodies
260/304 10 1 - based on PHWR-220- 500 MW(e) unit to be constructed
260/290 9 0 - based on experimental facilities- basic design completed- preliminary safety assessment underway
294/318 155 - design concept
355/510 0 1 - design concept
267/295 1 2 26 - based on commercial WERoperational experience
- upgraded plant design processing
*' Information in this table is exclusively based on the answers to the IAEA Questionnaire No attempt has been made to assess this information in any way" Water/live steam conditions for transferring to the network/process
35
installed, LSD engines can comply with air pollution standards, but at a high cost. Lifetimes of 30years can be achieved as shown by diesel engines in ships.
4.5. OTHER ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES
Incineration of waste may be suitable for producing electricity or heat. However, thecomplete waste processing system should be evaluated and compared to other possible wastemanagement options, so that hidden subsidies, if any, are included.
Regarding renewable energy sources, hydroelectric power plants are used where suitable watersources are available as base load, load following or peak load plants, with sizes ranging from a fewkW(e) to several thousand MW(e). The investment costs are usually very high, even when comparedwith nuclear power, but the operating costs are low. In arid regions, where there is a need forseawater desalination due to scarcity of water resources, hydroelectric power plants would onlyconstitute an alternative energy supply option in exceptional cases.
Other renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, may have some potential with regardto seawater desalination. These technologies can supply energy for tens to hundreds of m3/ddesalination plant capacity or more, but despite many years of development they are still far frombeing economically competitive. Also, these sources can only supply energy during the hours whenthere is sunshine or suitable wind, while a desalination plant would be expected to operate on a baseload basis. In specific situations, however, for very small desalination plants, solar ponds or thermalconcentrators may become interesting. For brackish water and decentralized inland applications, solarenergy and especially photovoltaics may come to play a role in the future.
4.6. NUCLEAR REACTORS
A broad spectrum of nuclear reactors is available today, comprising current as well as newdesigns. Most of the new designs under development are intended to meet even stricter performanceand safety requirements: passive removal of decay heat, simplification of systems, reduction ofradioactive release even under severe hypothetical conditions, etc. In principle, all nuclear powerreactors are capable of providing energy for desalination processes. Owing to their typically lowworking temperatures, single purpose heat only reactors designed for hot water district heating canonly be combined with distillation processes (MED and MSF). Some reactor designs are modular,which generally improve overall plant reliability and allow step-by-step adjustment to an increasingenergy demand by simply adding on more modules to existing units.
Depending on the availability and size of an electric grid, nuclear power plants can beintegrated into the grid to supply the electricity market, in addition to meeting the energyrequirements of the desalination plant. The size of the power plant will depend mainly on the gridcapacity. To capture the economies of scale, a grid connection is essential (see Section 5.3), and therelative scale of a nuclear power plant and of desalination processes must be taken into account whenconsidering a combination of these two technologies.
In areas without the possibility of any suitable grid connection, the reactors would have to bededicated exclusively to supplying energy to the desalination plant, leading to small nuclear units.Such small reactors could be installed on shore as land-based units supplying adjacent desalinationplants, or as barge-mounted self-sufficient floating plants. This can only be analysed on a case bycase basis. According to studies, floating MED plants could supply water in the range of about20 000 m3/d up to 120 000 nvVd. Floating RO plants may reach even 250 000 m3/d. Floatingdesalination plants could be especially attractive for supplying temporary demands of potable water.
Medium to large dual purpose nuclear power plants may be considered appropriate for largewater supply needs with distillation or hybrid processes and can also serve the electricity marketthrough the grid. The only reactor currently being used for supplying heat for seawater desalination
36
is a liquid metal cooled fast reactor, the BN-350, which has been operated in the cogeneration modeat Aktan (formerly Shevchenko), Kazakhstan, since 1973. This dual purpose plant has been operatedsince 1989 at a reduced thermal power level of 520 MW(th), with a maximum electric powerproduction capability of 80 MW(e) and heat for the production of about 80 000 m3/d of potable water[3, 5].
To obtain up-to-date information on nuclear reactors suitable for supplying energy todesalination systems, a questionnaire has been prepared by the IAEA with the assistance of expertsfrom Member States and sent out to potential suppliers worldwide. The answers received containedinformation on main design features, fields of application, current status of development andeconomics. A summary of the technical information received is provided in Table 7. All theinformation contained in this table is based exclusively on the answers to the IAEA questionnaire; noattempt has been made to assess it in any way. More details on the technical characteristics of thereactors are provided in Annex I.
According to the potential suppliers, some systems are commercially available in the shortterm, while others are expected to become available in the longer term. In addition to the reactorslisted, various current designs of large size nuclear power plants are known to be commerciallyavailable at present. There are some additional advanced concepts under development, but no detailedinformation on these was received in response to the questionnaire.
Because of the high development cost for advanced reactors, especially those based oninnovative concepts, Member States with ongoing programmes for advanced reactor development mayfind it attractive to co-operate internationally on the development of these technologies. The IAEA'sprogramme on nuclear power technology development encourages international co-operation throughtechnical information exchange and co-operative research. To assure that its efforts are desirable anduseful to Member States, the Agency programme activities on the development of water cooled, liquidmetal cooled and gas cooled reactors are guided by three International Working Groups which arecommittees of leaders of the national programmes in each technology area. Co-operation conductedwithin the frame of these International Working Groups allows a pooling of efforts in areas ofcommon interest and benefits from the experience and expertise of researchers from the participatingcountries. Technical descriptions and data on the status of advanced technology and designs arecontained in several IAEA publications [6-8].
The last column in Table 7 includes information on the current status of the reactors listed.This information is intended to indicate provenness and commercial availability. Provenness is aconcept mainly intended to reduce the commercial risk. There is no clear definition of when"provenness" is satisfactory. There is always some risk in any project, and what really matters tothe decision maker is his assessment of the relationship between the benefits expected and the risksincurred. A too rigid application of the provenness concept as a precondition would preclude takingadvantage of the latest technological developments and improvements.
37
5. COUPLING OF DESALINATION PLANT WITH ENERGY SOURCE
As discussed in Section 3 and in Ref. [3], seawater desalination plants require different formsof energy input, which for the selected processes are:
electricity, for the RO and MED/VC processes;mainly heat and also some electricity, for the distillation processes (MED and MSF).
All other desalination processes correspond to one or the other of these two categories. Inthe comparative economic evaluation, only desalination plants with a single desalination process areevaluated. A combination of desalination processes can be attractive for improving the overall energyefficiency and reducing the water costs. Such hybrid systems should be included in site specificevaluations.
Whatever process is used, the desalination plant can either be connected to an electrical grid,or remain isolated from the grid.
5.1. DESALINATION PLANT USING ONLY ELECTRICITY
For the RO process, the energy source is either a single purpose electricity generating plant,or an electric grid which comprises several interconnected generating units. The plants can benuclear, fossil fuelled, or any other type such as hydro, solar, wind powered or waste incineration.However, nuclear reactors and fossil fuelled plants constitute the two alternatives to be evaluated here.Both are suitable for base load operation, which corresponds to the requirement that desalinationplants meet a reasonably constant demand throughout the year.
Coupling of the energy source with an RO desalination plant is simple, requiring only anelectrical connection. Concerning technical aspects, there are no mutual influences between theelectricity generating plant and the RO desalination plant, except site specific, reliability andavailability aspects. For example, water intake characteristics would have a substantial influence onsite selection.
Technically, there is no need for joint siting of the desalination plant and the electricitygenerating plant. Electricity transport is easy and cheap, even for relatively long distances. Thesiting of both plants can be readily optimized separately, thus permitting construction of larger singlepurpose power plants with the accompanying economies of scale for power costs. The desalinationsite would normally be as close as possible to the potable water demand (centre of population orindustry), to minimize water transport costs.
The electricity generating plant can be sited relatively distant from population centres withoutsubstantial economic penalty due to transport of electricity and thus tend to avoid public acceptanceconcerns regarding nuclear power plants located close to population centres. As there is only anelectrical connection from the nuclear power plant to the desalination plant, there would be no riskof radioactive contamination reaching the potable water produced and therefore no need for specialprotection systems such as an additional intermediate heat transfer circuit.
Site relevant factors affect the installation costs of both the desalination and the electricitygenerating plants. If siting can be optimized separately instead of jointly, the economic advantagecould be quite substantial. The above mentioned advantages of separate siting apply both to the gridinterconnected and non-grid connected concepts.
Joint siting, on the other hand, offers the advantage of the possibility of sharing waterintake/outfall structures between the electricity generating plant and the desalination plant. If thesestructures are shared, the "contiguous plant" concept applies; if they are not shared, this correspondsto the "stand alone plant" (see "Definitions"). The difference between the initial investment
38
requirements of the two concepts may amount to 15-25%. In addition, the overall energyconsumption of the stand alone concept will be slightly higher (up to 0.1 kW(e)'h/m3) than for thecontiguous plant. There are some secondary advantages for the contiguous plant, if the coolingseawater from the power plant, already pumped and heated by several degrees, would be used asfeedwater for the RO plant. While the economic advantage of shared water intake/outfall structurescan be readily evaluated, as has been done in the economic analysis (Section 6), the economic benefitof separate siting optimization can only be analysed on a case-by-case basis due to the large influenceof water transport costs, and is therefore not assessed in the present report.
There is an advantage of joint siting related to the environment, because of the possibility ofmixing the discharge brine of the desalination plant with the cooling water discharge of the powerplant. While the brine tends to remain on the bottom of the sea, the cooling water discharge tendsto float on the surface. Mixing the two discharges will result in better dispersion characteristics.
All the above comments on the RO process are equally applicable to other desalinationprocesses using electricity only, such as MED/VC.
5.2. DESALINATION PLANT USING MAINLY THERMAL ENERGY
For the MED or MSF processes, the energy to be supplied is mainly low temperature heat(hot water or steam). Electricity is also required for pumping water. The energy source can be:
a single purpose heat only reactor or a corresponding conventional fossil fuelled boiler, andan additional electricity source; ora dual purpose (cogeneration of heat and electricity) nuclear or fossil fuelled plant.
In both cases, joint siting of the heat source and the desalination plant is necessary becausetransport of heat energy over long distances is expensive and involves unavoidable losses. Both plantsmust be adjacent, or at most separated by a short distance (few kilometres).
Coupling of the heat source to the desalination plant is obtained via a heat transfer circuit.With a fossil fuelled boiler, coupling is relatively simple but, for a nuclear reactor, the risk ofpossible radioactive contamination of the potable water produced must be avoided. Unless the reactordesign excludes the possibility of radioactive contamination reaching the product water (i.e. via apressure gradient), an additional intermediate heat exchange circuit is required. This can be donewithout undue complication, as demonstrated by the experience with several dual purpose nuclearplants in Bulgaria, Canada, the Commonwealth of Independent States, Czechoslovakia, Germany,Hungary and Switzerland [5]. However, there are extra costs involved.
In thermal desalination processes, mostly medium pressure steam is used for evacuation.Measures must be taken to avoid using such steam from nuclear plants, unless the design of theseplants excludes the possibility of steam contamination. The use of mechanical compressors, vacuumpumps or separately supplied steam can constitute such measures.
The turbines in a dual purpose (cogeneration) plant have to satisfy simultaneously therequirements of electricity generation and those of the heat needed by the water distillation system.The latter are determined by the exhaust steam pressure, which in turn determines the specific volumeof the steam, the volumetric flow rate, the average steam velocity, the cross-section areas of theturbine and the steam velocity vectors.
Such turbines might be somewhat difficult to obtain on the market, in particular for largeplants and/or nuclear units, but the following solutions could be envisaged:
Operating with an existing condensing turbine at higher exhaust pressure;Removing the last row of blades (i.e. eliminating the last expansion stages) from an existingcondensing turbine. Some reduction in the efficiency may occur;
39
Developing a new turbine suitable for the flow rates and optimal vapour pressures of thedesalination systems;Using several turbines in parallel, not necessarily of the same size;Diverting steam from the crossover pipe at the inlet to the low pressure section of an existingturbine. If the pressure is too high, a low pressure, backpressure turbine may be used toutilize the pressure difference between the diverted steam and the process needs.
These solutions do not involve significant additional costs, but each solution has itslimitations, direct or indirect costs (e.g. lower expansion efficiency) and complications.
Owing to different design concepts, there are large differences in the expansion efficienciesthrough the last stages of existing turbines, although the overall turbine efficiencies are almost thesame. This has a relatively large effect on the economics of seawater desalination, if the power creditmethod is used.
With cogeneration plants, the relatively small electricity demand of the MED or MSFdesalination plants can easily be provided through an electrical connection.
With heat only single purpose plants, there is a need for an additional electricity supplysource, which can either be a grid connection or on-site small electricity generating units.Redundancy will be needed, because supply must be assured with a very high degree of reliability.
5.3. ELECTRICAL GRID INTEGRATION
Grid interconnection is only viable when there is an electrical interconnected system availableto which the plant can effectively be connected.
When potable water is required to supply the household uses of a population center, it islikely that there is an electrical grid interconnection, serving the electricity demand of this center.In fact, the demand for electricity of population centres exceeds by far the electricity needed toprovide the potable water requirements, even with the RO process and certainly with the MED orMSF processes.
As an example, one can assume a situation where an urban concentration of one millionpeople consumes 250 litres of potable water per capita per day (LCD), all of it to be provided byseawater desalination, i.e. a demand of 250 000 m3/d. This would lead to a requirement (with RO)of about 70 to 80 MW(e) installed capacity for desalination, or 30 to 60 MW(e) with MED or MSFrespectively. This same urban concentration would require about 400 MW(e) installed capacity, forsatisfying an annual electricity consumption of some 2000 kW(e)*h per capita. Also, growth ratesfor electricity demand would be expected to be higher than for potable water.
The site of the desalination plant would have to be as close to the population center aspossible, and certainly not at a distance which would render electrical interconnection uneconomical.
Grid interconnection provides several benefits. Firstly, it permits taking advantage of theeconomic benefit obtained from having larger size electricity generation plants, which would bedesigned to serve the combined demand of both the population (load) center and the desalinationplant. Secondly, grid interconnection would substantially increase electricity supply reliability for thedesalination plant. The reserve capacity (spinning and cold reserve) of the whole interconnectedsystem would be available for the desalination plant, thus providing a level of reliability in theelectricity supply, which could only be achieved in the non-interconnected case, by installingsusbtantial redundant generating capacity to serve as backup. In addition, grid interconnection wouldreadily provide electricity during the construction and commissioning of the plants.
40
TABLE 8. POWER AND WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITIES
Source Si.«
Maximum Water Production(lOW/d)
Power to Grid'1MW(e)
MED RO RO(EC) (WHO)
MED RO RO(EC) (WHO)
Nuclear power plant*'(MW(e))
Nuclear healing plants01
(MW(th))
50300600900
50100200500
59 207 241265 1243 1446530 2487 2891795 3730 4337
3978186391
36245491736
35235470704
37244488731
Fossil power plant1"(MW(e))
Diesel 50Gas turbine 100Oil/gas 150Oil/gas 400Coal 500Coal 800
Fossil heating plant"(MW(th)
Oil/gas 100Coal 500
14165174294470
78391
196 226392 452622 7231658 19282072 24093316 3855
86133355415664
263134357428684
868136363438700
"' Net saleable power for water production as defined by MED plant.k) Dual purpose or electricity generating plants." Single purpose plants.
For the above mentioned reasons, electrical grid interconnection for any large desalinationplant serving a population centre, seems desirable. In the economic assessment (Section 6), gridinterconnection has been assumed to exist, and no provisions have been made to account for the costsinvolved in assuring adequate reliability of electricity supply through redundancy and reserve capacity.
If the desalination plant is designed to serve the potable water needs of an industrialinstallation, which is far from large population centers and electrical grids, then electricalinterconnection is not necessarily the optimum solution. An electrical source isolated from the gridand supplying the demand of both the desalination plant and the industry might be the mosteconomical solution. This would imply small electric power plants with sufficient redundancy foradequate assurance of supply (e.g. modular system). Such situations can only be analysed on a caseby case basis.
41
Medium or large sized nuclear power reactors or fossil fuelled plants - either single purposefor electricity generation only, combined with RO or MED/VC process desalination plants, or dualpurpose (electricity and heat) plants combined with MED or MSF processes - would need to beconnected to electrical grids of suitable size. Without grid connection, small size plants wouldconstitute the only option for the RO process, and dual purpose plants with electricity as the mainproduct would not be feasible at all.
Table 8 presents the water production capacities of desalination systems in combination withdifferent sizes of energy supply systems. The water production capacity of a desalination plant usingthe MED process is the result of design optimization with the parameters adopted in the present study.For economic comparison purposes, RO plants with the same water production capacities as thosewhich resulted for MED have been analysed. In addition, RO maximum alternatives have also beenpostulated and assessed; these alternatives result from using the total electricity generating capacityof the power plants for supplying energy to water desalination. It is to be noted that, for example,a 300 MW(e) single purpose electricity generating nuclear power plant, coupled to an RO process andproviding all the energy it produces for desalination, would supply all potable water needs of apopulation centre of five million people with a daily consumption rate of about 250 LCD. A300 MW(e) dual purpose nuclear plant would provide enough heat to a MED process desalinationplant to supply one million people with potable water, while making 245 MW(e) of electrical capacityavailable to the grid.
The largest size plant which can be integrated into an electrical grid is defined through aneconomic optimization for certain system reliability goals that are adopted. Such reliability goals areusually well above 99%.
In practice, the size of the largest unit will be around 10-15% of total interconnectedgenerating capacity. For small systems and modest reliability goals, the unit size might reach about20%. Owing to the cost of transmission lines, small loads or very distant load centers may not beconnected and one frequently finds several interconnected electrical systems isolated from each other,especially in developing countries having large areas and low overall population density.
For example, in the North African countries which participated in the desalination feasibilitystudy, electricity demand forecasts for the year 2000 indicate that the largest presently availablenuclear power plants could be integrated into the Egyptian electrical system. Algeria should be ableto accept power plants of 900 MW(e), while the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Morocco could integrateup to about 600 MW(e) and the upper limit in Tunisia would be around 300 MW(e). These numbersare orders of magnitude arrived at assuming that the national interconnected grids cover the wholecountry and that a plant size corresponding to 20% of total interconnected capacity could beintegrated. With a limit of 10%, the situation in Egypt would not change, but in the other countriesthe maximum sizes would be reduced by half.
Interconnections among countries, sharing of reserve capacities and common load dispatchingwould substantially increase the maximum admissible sizes which could be integrated, and larger jointprojects could be envisaged.
42
6. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
The costs of alternative energy supply options to be coupled to the various desalinationprocesses depend very much on the required output of the desalination plant. The costs for eachcombination of a desalination process and an energy source will vary for different locations andcountries. Factors, such as site specific conditions, infrastructure requirements and local sources ofequipment, material, and energy, will also affect comparative economic assessments of desalinationwith a nuclear energy source versus desalination with fossil or other energy sources.
In the assessment, only land based desalination and energy plants are considered and thedesalination plants consist of one process only.
Financial analyses of coupling nuclear reactor systems with desalination processes have notbeen performed, nor have analyzes been made on the pricing of desalted water, since such analyseswill require project and country specific assumptions that are beyond the scope of this economicassessment. The build-operate-transfer approach for project financing is one possible option forfinancing desalination projects (see Section 8, as well as the IAEA publications [9 - 12]).
6.1. ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
There are various different methodologies available for comparative economic evaluations,ranging from the very simple to the highly sophisticated. The methodology to be applied dependsmainly on the purpose of the evaluation and on the detail and reliability of the data and informationavailable.
The most useful criterion to measure the economic merit for each combination of adesalination plant and an energy source is that of the lifetime levelized unit cost of the potable waterproduced, expressed in $ per m3. This levelized cost is obtained by dividing the sum of all theexpenses related to the production of water by the total amount of water produced, where properdiscounting is done using a predetermined interest or discount rate. This methodology is similar tothat generally used in calculating the levelized cost of electricity for power plants (see Annex II fora description of the methodology). In addition, however, some other criteria have to be consideredas well, which are:
Total investment and specific investment per production capacity (expressed as $ per m3/d);Value of the specific energy consumed by each unit of potable water produced;Values of other cost components.
6.1.1. Single purpose plant
The economics of using single purpose nuclear or fossil fuelled plants to supply heat (only)or electricity (only) to desalination plants can be evaluated and compared using the generally acceptedconstant money levelized cost methodology as recommended in [9] and described in Annex II.
The procedure of calculating the levelized cost of energy from a single purpose plant isrelatively simple and is based on the present value concept that takes into account the time value ofmoney. Thus, the levelized cost of energy is the discounted cost of all expenditures associated withthe design, construction, operation, maintenance, fuelling, decommissioning, and waste management,divided by the discounted value of the quantities of energy produced.
Calculating the cost of potable water follows fundamentally the same procedure but in thiscase all expenditures associated with the desalination plant are considered, and instead of the cost of"fuelling", the cost of energy delivered at the desalination plant is taken as an input. The cost ofwater calculated with this procedure will be at the outlet of the desalination plant, and will excludeall costs associated with storage, transport and distribution to the final consumers. These latter costs
43
are substantial, and very much site dependant. Annex IV contains a sample calculation for watertransport costs. Storage costs in particular also depend on the enduse of the water produced, i.e.whether the water is for domestic or industrial consumption. While the water production costs at theoutlet of the desalination plant are also influenced by site conditions, they still have a reasonablegeneral validity.
6.1.2. Dual purpose plant
Several methodologies have been suggested for the evaluation of the economics of dualpurpose plants which cogenerate electricity and heat [3, 13 - 17]. These methodologies fall broadlyinto two categories:
(a) Apportioning methods
(b) Power credit methods.
The apportioning methods divide the total plant costs between the two products (electricityand heat) in a certain ratio, a suitable ratio being selected on the basis of various criteria. Suchmethods include, for example, a comparison of the dual purpose plant with alternative single purposeplants to establish a ratio of heat to electricity costs. Although the application of such apportioningmethods is fairly straightforward, it is difficult to ensure that the ratio employed is trulyrepresentative. In practice, the ratio can be somewhat arbitrary. Problems likely to be encounteredinclude:
Difficulties in accurately defining the costs of equivalent single purpose plants. This isparticularly true when the energy source is a nuclear reactor.
Implications of market distorting conditions for either of the outputs, i.e. direct or hiddensubventions, disproportional profits or selective taxing.
Difficulties in selecting suitable limits for the scope of the alternative plants.
The power credit method of cost allocation selects a predetermined value for one of theproducts (electricity or heat) based on the cost of that product from an alternative source. Thisalternative can be a single purpose plant (either existing or conceptual) and the method effectivelyassigns an upper limit to the value of either electricity or heat. Using that value as the cost of oneof the products of the dual purpose plant, the cost of the second product can be determined. In effect,the second product is credited with all of the economic benefits associated with the plant being dualpurpose.
For a dual purpose plant in which electricity generation dominates, the power credit methodseems appropriate. This is likely to be the case when a large nuclear reactor is the heat source andit is then reasonable to assume an electricity cost equivalent to that of a single purpose electricitygenerating station. The net electrical output from this single purpose plant will be greater than thatfrom the dual purpose plant, if it is assumed to be a nuclear power reactor of the same thermaloutput.
The power credit method as recommended in Ref. [17] is adopted as the economic assessmentmethodology in the current study for the purposes of calculating the cost of the energy (heat) inputto the desalination plant. The cost component attributable to the desalination itself (without the energycost) remains unaffected by the methodology chosen (apportioning or power credit).
For dual purpose plants, coupling with desalination plants applies only to thermal (distillation)processes (such as MED or MSF), while for single purpose, electricity generating plants couplingapplies only to electrically driven processes (such as RO or MED/VC). For all currently operating
44
dual purpose nuclear power plants, electricity is the main product with heat corresponding to not morethan 10% and generally less than 5% of the thermal output. In the case of dual purpose plantscoupled with desalination plants, all the shared benefits are accrued to the water production costs.
To facilitate the computation of the levelized energy cost of the heat source and the levelizedwater cost, a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet has been developed by General Atomics and made available tothe IAEA. Annex III contains the results of reference case calculations. The thermodynamic andeconomic analysis algorithms have been tested for robustness with software from the Commissariatà l'Energie Atomique, the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and the IAEA and have generated resultsthat are consistent with the input parameters.
6.2. ECONOMIC AND PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
To facilitate the comparison of the various options, a consistent set of economic andperformance parameters must be used in calculating the levelized costs of energy and of potablewater. The main parameters include: reference currency, operation reference date, construction leadtime, economic life, load factor, real escalation, interest and discount rates, plant investment and fuelcosts. The main parameters adopted are summarized in Table 9 and additional parameters are notedin Annex III.
The reference currency is the United States dollar (US $) of January 1991 and, for thepurpose of economic evaluation, the operation reference date was arbitrarily assumed to be January 1,of the year 2000. However, the period required for the planning and implementation of a nuclearpower project is usually longer than what this reference date would permit.
The construction lead time is defined as the time period between the start of construction andthe start of operation. Thus, for example, for a nuclear project with a construction lead time of fiveyears, the construction start must be no later than 1 January 1995 to meet the operation date of1 January 2000. For construction to start effectively in January 1995, all previous studies andactivities, such as feasibility study, site selection and qualification, acquisition (bidding, contracting),financing arrangements, international agreements, licensing, site preparation, project organization,would have to be completed by the end of 1994.
The economic life is defined as the period of time after which a plant or facility is expectedto be definitely shut down because of physical deterioration of the plant to the extent that it cannotsustain continuous operation at high load factors, or because of obsolescence. The economic life ofa power plant or a desalination plant does not necessarily coincide with the technical or design life;however, the time considered for the economic life of a plant never exceeds its technical or designlife. In the evaluation, an economic life of 30 years is used for all plants, consistent with currentassumptions adopted by IAEA and OECD/NEA for the economic assessment of power plants. In thecase of gas turbines, since the technical lives are not expected to be longer than 15 years,replacements of the turbines will be necessary to allow for continuing operation of the desalinationplant beyond year 15 from the operation date.
An average lifetime load factor of 80% is assumed for all power plants, except for dieselengines, where 90% is taken. For the desalination plants, the assumed average lifetime load factoris 91%.
Real interest rates used in many industrialized and developing countries range from 5% to10% according to IAEA [18] and OECD/NEA [19] studies. In the present economic assessment, 8%was considered as the reference value and 5% and 10% were used for the sensitivity analysis.
The cost of nuclear fuel has been declining in the last decade and has now been stabilized;no real cost increase for nuclear fuel is currently foreseen [19, 20].
45
TABLE 9. MAIN ECONOMIC AND PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
Parameter
Reference currency
Currency reference date
Operation lefeience date
Economic l i f e
Lifetime average load factors- fossil fuel led and nuclear plants- diesel engines and heat only plants- desa l ina t ion p lants
Real escalation rates
Real interest and discount rates
Coal price (reference, FOB)
Coal t ransport cost
Crude oil price (reference, FOB)
Reference value
US do l la r
1 January 1991
1 January 2000
30 years
80%90%91%
0%
8%
US $50/t
US$10/t
US $25/hbl
Sensitivity value
70%80%80%
1 % (coal) and2% (oil)
5% and 10%
US $30/t andUS $70/t
US $15/bbl andUS $35/bbl
Crude oil t ransport cost
Product wdter standard
Assumed location
Average cooling water temperature
Power p l a n t design cooling water temp.
RO process design tooling water temp
Seawdter total dissolved solids
Energy plant construction cost
Desalination p lan t construction cost
US $0.5/bbl
EC
North African coast
21°C
27"C
18°C
38 500 ppm
Tables 12 and 14
Table 10
WHO
-20% and +20%
-20% and +20%
While the price of coal has also declined in the early to mid-1980s, it has started to increasemoderately to the current price of about $50/t, FOB port of export. It is estimated that ocean freightand inland transportation will add about $10/t, making the delivered price of coal about $60/t. Asmany of the uneconomic coal mines have already been shut down because of the depressed coal pricelevels of the mid-1980s, it is generally expected that the future prices of coal will escalate at about1% per annum in real terms, according to fossil fuel cost projections by the OECD/IEA. For thereference case, no real escalation in coal prices is assumed; for sensitivity analysis purposes, a 1 %annual real coal price increase is used [19] and, in addition, constant coal prices of $30/t and $70/t.
46
Though the current price of crude oil in the spot market is still below $20 per barrel, it isgenerally foreseen that it will increase to about $25 per barrel within the next few years, and then willescalate at up to 2% annually in real terms. For the reference case, it is assumed that the deliveredprice of crude oil is $25 per barrel, with no real increases. For the sensitivity analysis, a 2% annualreal escalation in the delivered price of crude oil is used and, in addition, constant oil prices of $15and $35 per barrel with no real escalation. It is also assumed that the prices of natural gas andfuel-oil will be governed by and similar to the price of crude oil.
The (overnight) construction cost of all plants includes the costs in constant 1991 US dollarsof site acquisition, site preparation, design and construction, as well as the testing and commissioningof the plant prior to the operation date. For the sensitivity analysis, a 20% increase or decrease isconsidered.
To arrive at the total investment costs of all plants, increases to the base costs of 5% forowner's costs and of 10% for contingencies have been made and a cash flow curve developed,consistent with the construction lead time assumption. Real interest during construction (IDC) is thencalculated and added.
As a representative example, it was assumed that the plants would be located on the NorthAfrican coast. Considering the results obtained in the recent report: "Feasibility Study for Small andMedium Nuclear Power Plants in Egypt" [21], in which a comparative economic analysis wasperformed for a location at El Dabaa, the base costs of all power plants (valid for conditionsprevailing in the suppliers' countries) were increased by 10% to take into account additional costsresulting from construction in Egypt. These additional costs correspond to the net result of takinginto account the higher costs resulting from construction outside the suppliers' countries and theeffects of local participation. It was assumed that similar conditions and additional costs would applyto any other specific location on the North African coast.
Operation and maintenance costs for both the desalination and power plants include such itemsas: payroll costs of all personnel on site, purchased and contracted services, consumable materials,repair and replacement of equipment, insurance premiums for damages and liabilities, training, traveland administration overheads.
The standards assumed for product water quality were those corresponding to EC and toWHO respectively.
6.3. INPUT COST DATA FOR DESALINATION PLANTS
The dominant cost factors in specific water production costs (at the plant outlet) are the capitalinvestment and the cost of money (interest rates). The capital charges will depend on the total plantproduction capacity, number of units, process employed, interest rates and amortization period.Although progress in developing more energy efficient desalination systems over the last decade wasrelatively substantial, the energy portion is still the second largest cost component. The operating andmaintenance (O&M) component has the smallest impact on the water production costs, but it shouldbe remembered that maintenance controls the life, reliability and availability of each plant. Theportion of O&M costs is higher for RO systems, because of the required membrane replacements,than for MED or MSF plants. The assumptions for calculating the O&M costs for each alternativeare contained in Annex HI.
Table 10 shows the desalination plant investment cost assumptions for RO, MED, MED/VCand MSF. These costs are consistent with costs calculated with a programme developed for andpublished by IDA (International Desalination Association). The RO investment costs are reduced if,instead of a two stage RO system necessary to meet EC standards, a one stage system is selected,producing drinking water in accordance with WHO standards. Cost assumptions for the distillationprocess plants are the same for EC and WHO standards.
47
TABLE 10 DESALINATION PLANT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Process GOR
MED 11 5
1 2 2
17
21
21
Numberof effectsor stages
14
16
23
27
28
Unitsize(m3/d)
48000
48000
48000
48000
48000
Specific unithase cost"(US $/m3/d)
1440
1440
1600
1680
1680
MCD/VC - 8 24000 1650
RO - 2 24 000 1350(CC standard)
RO - 1 24000 1125(WHO Standard)
MSF 115 42 48000 1800
12 2 42 48 000 1800
Specific u n i i base1 cost excludes,- Contingency 10%- Owners cost 5%- Interest d u r i n g construction
Intermediate loop cost (only required for MED combined with nuclear plant) SlOO/mVd- Waler intake/outfal l structures
The costs for all desalination processes are based on utilization of high grade materials,bearing in mind the required economic life of 30 years. Low grade or cheaper materials could reducethe specific installation costs, but would result in shorter life, lower availability and drastically highermaintenance costs. The cost data in Table 10 are based on a complete scope including all necessarysite infrastructure (offices, workshops, etc.). Costs related to the energy source are not included.If more than two units are built at the same site, it is assumed that the specific costs are reduced bymultiplying with the factors contained in Table 11. These factors include consideration of sharedengineering, erection, supervision, infrastructure, as well as better purchasing conditions, learningcurve effect during manufacturing and reduced mobilization, management and insurance costs.
6.4. INPUT COST DATA FOR FOSSIL FUELLED PLANTS
A preselection has been performed from among the available fossil fuelled options in orderto present the best candidate for any given size of plant. Owing to the wide range of sizes and
48
TABLE 11. COST REDUCTION FACTORS FOR DESALINATION PLANTSWITH MULTIPLE UNITS
Number of units Factor
1234567891011121314 or more
1.0000.9830.9590.9350.9120.8880.8660.8440.8230.8020.7820.7630.7440.725
technologies, the preselection has been made with the help of a cost model for each technology,consistent with IEA, OECD/NEA, UNIPEDE and IAEA methodologies. It was found that:
(a) Diesel is the most economical choice for electricity generation for small sizes (< 50 MW(e)).Gas turbines are competitive up to 100 MW(e) or higher capacities for the ease of operationor when shorter construction times are a prime objective.
(b) Combined cycle gas and steam turbines or fuel oil or gas fired plants are the most economicalchoice up to the largest sizes available for these options.
(c) Coal plants are the most economical options for sizes above 500 MW(e).
Based on the preselection, typical costs for construction, fuel and O&M have been selectedand are presented in Table 12. Since most of the capital cost data are drawn from actual experiencein industrial countries, a 10% increase in the base construction cost has been included to allow forthe added cost of installing such plants in the North African region, which is the assumed location[21].
6.5. INPUT COST DATA FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS
Four representative sizes were selected to cover the wide spectrum of available sizes, for bothsingle purpose (electricity only) and dual purpose (electricity and heat) plants. Four additional sizeswere selected for single purpose heat only plants. For each size, reference data on the basis ofrepresentative PWR designs have been assumed, to simplify calculations.
49
TABLE 12. COST ASSUMPTIONS FOR FOSSIL FUELLED PLANTS
base construction Fuel O&MSi?e cost cost Cost
MW" US$/kW" U S $ / M W - h " USS/MW-h"
Power plant
Diesel
Gas tu rb ine
Oil /gas
Oil/gas
Coal
Coal
Hejidn» p l n n t
Oil/gas boiler
COH! bo i l e r
50
100
150
400
500
800
100
500
1100
440
660
550
1540
1320
440
440
30.0
48.4
326
326
21 9
21.9
15.0
8 5
4
6
5
5
3
3
1
1
1 MW(e) for power plant , MW(th) for healing plant.k\V(e) fur power p lan t , kW(th) for heating p lant
Based on the responses to the Agency questionnaire (Table 13), representative costs forconstruction, fuel and O&M have been established, whereby some adjustments for different basis data(especially concerning scope of supply) have been made. For these adjustments, parameter modelshave also been used, based on the IAEA account system for nuclear power plants [22] and datadeveloped by OECD/NEA and the IAEA as well as other organizations [19, 22]. The representativecosts assumed for the comparative economic assessment are given in Table 14.
6.6. LEVELIZED ENERGY AND WATER COSTS
For single purpose electricity generating plants, the levelized energy costs are arrived at bydividing the sum of the levelized annual cost for capital, operation and maintenance, fuelling anddecommissioning allowance of the power plant by the average annual production of electricity. Theresulting value is the levelized energy cost, expressed in $/MW(e)-h (or mills/kW(e)'h). It is usedas the input to calculate the energy component of the levelized water cost. Table 15 shows thelevelized electricity costs of the selected options. These costs are used as inputs to calculate the costof electricity of dual purpose plants. For dual purpose plants, the value of the heat for distillationis taken to be the revenue that would have accrued from lost electricity generation (due to the deliveryof heat) in accordance with the power credit method used (see Section 6.1.2). For single purpose heatonly plants, the levelized (heat) energy costs are calculated with the same procedure as for singlepurpose electricity only plants, and the results expressed in $/MW(th)-h (or mills/kW(th) • h) aresummarized in Table 16.
50
TABLE 13 NUCLEAR COST DATA SUMMARY"
(USSIO'/a)
Size
Electricity
Large
Medium
Small
Reactor
Production/Dual
BWR90
AP600ATS- 150CANDU-3MHTGRNP-300PIUSSIR
CAREM 25HTR-Moduie
Reactortype»
Size(MW)"
Constructiontime (year)
Specificconstruction cost(US $/kW)«
Fuel(US$/MW-h)c)
O&M(US SlO^/a)
Purpose Plants (MW(e))
BWR
PWRPWRHWRHTRPWRPWRPWR
PWRHTR
720
6002 x 1804504x 1734 x 1756402 x 320
254x 80
6
5555555
44
1496
1672180920311637220020631550
20002587
665
1083343519013897 1-
1681308
24 1
37920831.946525020.9
-
14"246
Single Purpose Heating Plants (MW(th)
Large
Medium
Small
AST-500
HR-200THERMOS
GEYSERLT-4SES-10TRIGA
PWR
PWRPWR
PWRPWRPWRPWR
2 x 4 0 0
200150
23801064
9
44
3333
631
550930
14398757131266
1 6
259371
3955.07573.91
15.9
4422 5
063.30261.9
" Information provided in response to an IAEA enquiry; assumed exchange rates 1 US $ = 6 FF, l 8 DM and 1 15 Can $.b) Technical data are presented in Table 7 and in Annex I.c> MW(e) for electricity production/dual purpose plants, MW(th) for single purpose heating plants* kW(e) for electricity production/dual purpose plants, kW(th) for single purpose heating plants
— " Decommissioning cost not included.
TABLE 14. COST ASSUMPTIONS FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS
Base construction Fuel O&MSize cost cost cost
MW" US $/kWk> U S S / M W - h " USS/MW-h"
Power plant
50300600900
27502420
1870
1650
108
7
6
15
12129
Heating plant
50
100200
500
1650
1100825
605
3.3
3.33.3
2.7
6.05.04.5
4.0
MW(e) for power plant ; MW(tli) for healing plant.k\V(e) fur power p l a n t , kW(th) for heat ing p lan t .
The levelized water costs are arrived at by dividing the sum of the costs for levelized capital,operation and maintenance, and decommissioning allowance of the desalination plant and the levelizedenergy cost, by the average annual production of water. This results in the levelized water cost, in$/m3 of produced water, at the desalination plant outlet.
The detailed economic evaluations (Annex III) were performed for plants with the RO andwith the MED processes respectively, which were taken as representative processes for desalinationusing electricity only and for desalination using mainly thermal energy. Parametric calculationsbetween RO and MED/VC as well as between MED and MSF were made, resulting in substantiallyhigher costs of product water from MED/VC and MSF than those from RO and MED. The majorcontributing factor is the energy required by the different processes. MED/VC consumesapproximately 50% more energy than RO and MSF consumes almost 100% more energy than MED.
Table 17 contains a summary of the levelized water costs of the options analysed, and theresults are also illustrated in Figures 6-9.
52
TABLE 15 LEVELIZED ELECTRICITY COSTS
(US$/MW(e)-h)
Real interest rates
Source Power 5% 8% 10%MW(e)
Nuclear plants
Fossil plants
Diesel
Gas turbine
Oil/gas
Oil/gas
Coal
Coal
50
300
600
900
50
100
150
400
500
800
54
46
40
34
43
59
44
43
41
38
67
58
49
42
47
60
47
45
48
44
76
67
56
49
50
62
49
47
53
49
6.7. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
All values of parameters and costs adopted for the economic assessment are best estimatesbased on available information, experience and engineering judgement. They correspond to certainreference values within reasonable ranges. The sensitivity analysis indicate on how changes in theassumed reference values affect the final results. The reference and sensitivity values are given inTable 9.
The economic assessment has shown that capital charges represent the most important costcomponent of the final water production cost. Consequently, variations in any parameter affectingcapital charges have a relatively large influence on the final results. Figure 10 contains a summaryof the results of the sensitivity analysis expressed as a percentage of the reference water costs.
The effects of using real interest rates of 5% and 10% (reference value 8%) on the energycosts are shown in Tables 15 and 16. The cost analysis in Annex III contains the calculations for allthree rates, and the resulting water costs for the reference value are given in Table 17
53
TABLE 16. LEVELIZED ENERGY COSTS FOR HEATING PLANTS
(US$/MW(th)-h)
Real interest rates
Source Sue 5% 8% 10%MW(th)
Nuclear plants
50100200
500
251916
13
312319
15
362622
17
Fossil plants
Oil use/gas boiler 100 20 22 23
Coal boiler 500 14 16 17
Annex III and Table 17 also give the results of using WHO water standards instead of ECstandards. This has no effect on specific energy costs and water costs are affected only in case ofmembrane desalination processes, such as RO. The competitive position of nuclear versus fossilpower remains practically unaffected.
Fuel prices have a large effect on the energy costs of fossil fuelled plants. The results of thesensitivity analysis on water costs, using real annual escalation rates of 1% for coal and 2% for oil,or alternately a non-escalated higher price of $80 per t for coal and $35.5 per bbl for oil (includingtransport costs), are contained Figure 10. With these fuel prices, the competitive position of thenuclear options are considerably improved. On the other hand, with fossil fuel prices lower than thevalues assumed for the reference case, nuclear power would lose competitivity.
The plant load factor has an important effect on both energy and water costs, because it hasa direct influence on the respective fixed cost components. Figure 10 shows the results of sensitivitycalculations based on energy supply and desalination plant load factors lower than the referencevalues. For the fossil options, the resulting cost increases are somewhat less than for the nuclearoptions, owing to the difference in the share of the respective fixed cost components. A lower loadfactor for the desalination plant only, has practically no effect on the competitive positions of thenuclear and fossil energy options.
The water cost sensitivity to 20% higher or lower power plant construction costs is presentedin Figure 10. The effect of considering 20% cost increases or reductions for fossil plants is somewhatsmaller than in the case of the nuclear alternatives. While water production costs are substantiallyaffected by variation of the desalination plant construction costs, the competitive position of nuclearversus fossil energy sources are not affected.
54
TABLE 17 SUMMARY OF WATER COSTS''(US $/m3)
Source Size MED Stand alone RO(EC) (WHO)
Contiguous RO(EC) (WHO)
Nuclear power pUntk )
(MW(e))
50300600900
1.06094083079
1 16097089085
099082075072
1 11094086083
094079073070
Nuclear healing plant0
(MW(lh))
50100200500
2021661 471 27
nananana
nananana
nananana
nananana
Fossil power plantb)
(MW(e))
Diesel 50 na 0 98 0 84 0 95 0 80Gasturb ine 100 094 110 094 106 089Oil/gas 150 098 107 091 101 086Oil/gas 400 093 096 082 092 078Coal 500 094 091 077 088 074Coal 800 089 087 074 085 071
Fossil heating plant0
(MVV(lh) )
Oil/gas 100 1 56 na na na naCoal 500 121 na na na na
" 8% real interest rate, na = not available" Dual purpose or electricity generating plants" Single purpose plants
6.8. CONCLUSIONS
Desalination costs range from about $0.7 per m3 to about $2.0 per m3 depending on the plantsize, interest rates, desalination processes, and energy source. The effects of plant size andinterest rates have the greatest impact on water costs.
Nuclear plants are economically competitive with fossil plants for both electricity and heatproduction, even assuming zero real escalation of fossil fuel prices. Lower interest rates tendto favour nuclear options.
RO and MED processes have similar water production costs over a wide range of sizes,energy costs and interest rates. With less stringent drinking water standards (i.e those ofWHO instead of EC) RO would be the economically more favoured technology
55
$/m2.5
1.5
0.5
0
Heat & Power or Power only[MW(e)J
Gas turbine100
- 22
combined cycle Combined cycle150 400
Coal fired500
Coal fired800
Power onl[MW(e)]
Dfesel50
r Heat only(MW(th))
100 500
MED RO-S RO-C MED RO-S RO-C MED RO-S RO-C MED RO-S RO-C MED RO-S RO-C RO-S RO-C MED MED
CAPITAL ENERGY g 0&MInterest rate 8%1991 US$
EC standardRO-S. Stand-Alone RO PlantRO-C Contiguous RO Plant
FIG. 6. Water costs with fossil plant option.
$/m:
2.5Heat & Power or Power only [MW(e)j Heat only [MW(th)]
50
1.5
0.5
300 600 900 50 100 200 500
MED RO-S RO-C MED RO-S RO-C MED RO-S RO-C MED RO-S RO-C MED MED MED MED
CAPITAL ^ ENERGY ^ O&MInterest rate 8%1991 US$ RO-S: Stand-Alone RO Plant
EC standard RO-C: Contiguous RO Plant
FIG. 7. Water costs with nuclear option.
$/m'1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
MED
I
NuclearRO-S
200
NuclearMED
400 600
Power plant capacity MW(e)800 1,000
CoalMED
CoalRO-C. -A- - -
C-CRO-S
C-CMED G-T Diesel
Interest rate 8%1991 US$
EC standardC-C: Combined cycleG-T: Gas turbine
RO-S: Stand-alone RO plantRO-C: Contiguous RO plant
FIG. 8. Water costs with nuclear and fossil options vs power plant capacity (dual purpose and electricity only).
$/m1.2
1 1
0.9
0.8
0.7
~--R- "f~~"~"—"—•—-—- _L•""—-•-ö
I I l
NuclearRO-S
200,000
NuclearMED
400,000rr?/d
600,000
CoalMED
CoalRO-C
. -A- - -
C-CRO-S
C-CMED
-O--
800,000
G-T
1,000,000
Diesel
Interest rate 8%1991 US$
EC standardC-C: Combined cycleG-T: Gas turbine
RO-S: Stand-alone RO plantRO-C: Contiguous RO plant
FIG. 9. Water costs with nuclear and fossil options vs. desalination plant capacity (dual purpose and electricity only).
'Interest rate 5%
10%
»Waterstandard WHO
*Fossil fuel escalation
*Fossil fuel price high
low
*Plant load factors low
*P P constr cost +20%
-20%
*W P constr cost +20%
-20%
A
B
A
B
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Differences from reference case (%)
A Nuclear plants B: Fossil plants
FIG. 10. Sensitivity analysis of desalination cost.
About 80% to 90% of the electricity production capability of dual purpose plants would beused for supplying electricity to the grid, the rest being used by the desalination plant.
Water production costs with single purpose heat only plants are substantially higher than withdual purpose (electricity and heat), or single purpose electricity only power plants.
The energy cost component of the total water production cost is about 25% to 35% when dualpurpose or electricity only power plants are used. For heat only plants, this cost componentis close to 50%.
Of the total investment required for potable water production, in general a quarter to a thirdcorresponds to the portion of the energy supply plant attributable to water production. Thisshare approaches 50% for small single purpose heat only nuclear plants, and is less than 10%for combined cycle fossil plants and gas turbines.
When the power plant supplies electricity to the grid in addition to supplying energy forseawater desalination, its share in the total investment for a combined project would behigher. In this case, however, the investment corresponding to the portion of the power plantwhich supplies electricity to the grid, is attributable to the electricity sector.
60
7. SAFETY, REGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
7.1. SAFETYAs with any industry, normal industrial safety practices are applied to desalination plants in
order to ensure proper protection of the plant personnel and the public.
Nuclear safety as well as industrial safety must be ensured for a nuclear power plant. Here,the philosophy of "safety first" has always been applied, and although accidents have happened, thesafety record of the nuclear industry can compare favourably with any other energy source, even ifthis is not always perceived in this way by the public, the media or politicians.
Achievement of adequate safety levels are the responsibility of the operating organization.Establishing safety goals, rules and regulations which must be complied with by the nuclear reactorand the operating organization are the responsibility of the national regulatory authority, which is alsoresponsible for inspection and enforcement to ensure compliance.
When the respective sites of a nuclear power plant and of a desalination plant are separate andreasonably distant, the (nuclear) safety requirements for the nuclear reactor are not affected by thefact that the energy generated is used for desalination. For adjacent siting, however, there might bestricter criteria for the release of radioactive effluents under normal conditions, as well as foracceptable levels of risk regarding potential accidents, in order to reduce the risk of contaminatingthe desalination plant and its product, potable water.
Desalination plants must produce water with well defined quality requirements, which areadopted taking into account the end use. Protection from contamination is important, and if energyin the form of heat (hot water or steam) is supplied by a nuclear reactor to a desalination plant witha distillation process (MED or MSF), measures must be taken to avoid any conceivable risk. Unlessthe design of the reactor excludes the possibility of the radioactive contamination reaching thedesalination plant and the water it produces, an additional intermediate heat exchange circuit wouldbe needed, with a somewhat higher pressure on the desalination plant side, to ensure that if anymixing or releases should occur, these would flow in the direction of the reactor.
For desalination plants using a membrane process such as RO or MED/VC, which requireselectricity only, there is of course no risk of radioactive contamination reaching the desalination plantthrough the energy transfer connection.
The nuclear industry is continuously striving for the achievement of improved nuclear safetylevels in the design, construction and operation of nuclear reactors through technological development.In particular, all advanced reactor concepts share the common goal of enhancing safety. While themeasures and solutions of the various concepts differ, the goal is the same. From the point of viewof assessing the safety of a particular advanced reactor concept, it is the overall assessment of thereactor which is important, and not the assessment of individual systems, components or measurestaken separately [23].
7.2. REGULATORY AND LICENSING ASPECTS
All industrial plants have to comply with applicable regulations of the country where they areinstalled and operated.
Desalination plants would have to comply with the relevant regulations of authoritiesconcerned with water supply, public health, the environment and industry in general. Fossil fuelledplants have their own regulatory regimes to which they have to conform.
61
Nuclear energy constitutes a special case. In addition to having to comply with regulatoryrequirements applicable to the power industry in general, they also have to comply with the applicablenuclear regulatory requirements. The nuclear industry is strictly regulated. A prerequisite for anycountry undertaking a nuclear energy project, is to have the capability of ensuring nuclear safetywhich implies an adequate regulatory infrastructure.
The IAEA has developed Nuclear Safety Standards (NUSS), which provide guidance on thebasic objectives and requirements for a national regulatory infrastructure. The IAEA can also assistits Member States upon request in the development or improvement of their regulatory infrastructures.
Although a worldwide consensus exists regarding basic safety principles and adequate safetylevels, there are differences among countries regarding licensability and the licensing conditions,rules, regulations, requirements and procedures to be applied. Licensing is always a nationalresponsibility, and what is licensable in one country may not be and frequently is not licensable inanother. There is a trend towards unifying criteria and reaching international concensus on this, butthere is also resistance to modifying established practices, so that the achievement of a commonsystem will require a long, gradual process.
Countries which already have nuclear energy and an established national regulatory regimeincluding a licensing system will apply their own criteria and procedures for judging the licensabilityof reactor concepts or designs. This approach, however, cannot be applied by countries lackingregulatory and licensing experience. Consequently, these countries (in particular for first nuclearenergy projects) have opted in the past to be satisfied if a nuclear reactor is licensable in the supplier'scountry. The responsibility for licensing itself is still retained by each individual country but, withthis approach, basic concerns regarding safety can be met.
7.3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
The effects of a desalination plant on the environment are independent of the energy source.They can be considered in general positive, because desalination provides safe and clean potablewater, which contributes to the improvement of the environment at large. It should be taken intoaccount, however, that a desalination plant does produce effluents which have to be controlled andmanaged in order to keep the potentially harmful effects on the immediate surroundings withinadmissible limits.
The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and other environmentally harmfulsubstances. The deterioration of air quality on a global basis has become a subject of intensediscussions all over the world, and acid rain as well as climate change are causing major concerns.
There is thus a trend emerging to establish rules, regulations and also economic measures,including special taxes, to promote environmental protection by avoiding or at least reducingcontamination of the atmosphere, water or soil. Unfortunately, not many countries have suchregulations or measures in force, so uncontrolled contamination from fossil fuelled plants is stillnormal practice in many places, although it is expected that the situation will gradually improve inthe future.
Nuclear power is regarded as an available alternative energy source, which is alreadycontributing and can further contribute to reducing environmental pollution caused by the burning offossil fuels [24].
62
8. INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS
Large scale seawater desalination plants using nuclear reactors as an energy source havespecial features, which must be taken into account and which are discussed in the following sections.
8.1. FINANCING
Seawater desalination plants, water storage, transport and distribution systems and energygenerating plants, in particular nuclear reactors, are all capital intensive installations. Depending onits size, a seawater desalination plant will require a capital investment in the order of 100 - 1000million dollars. Capital investment requirements for water storage, transport and distribution systemscould be of the same order of magnitude as those for the desalination plant.
National participation to supply components and systems will reduce somewhat therequirements of foreign currency. The appropriate extent of this participation will depend on localconditions and will have to be assessed on a case by case basis for criteria such as capability toachieve the necessary technical standards, including quality assurance. Adequate financing will beneeded in foreign and in local currency, for the foreign and local cost components of the project,respectively.
A majority of future plants would have to be installled in countries with scarce financialresources. Taking into that an adequate supply of potable water is essential for human life and healthas well as for industrial use, favourable financing terms from national or international lenders as wellas from governmental organizations will be necessary. Special financing schemes and multisourcefinancing, possibly with government guarantees, would be needed, in particular for countries withlimited means and credit worthiness problems [9 - 12].
The "build-operate-transfer" (BOT) approach is one possible option for obtaining the capitalneeded. It may also lead to increased efficiency from the private sector and encourage foreigninvestment.
In the BOT model, a joint venture is be set up which acts as the owner and operator of theplant. The supplier is expected to take an equity in this joint-venture, most likely together with thestate owned or private utility responsible for the generation of electricity and/or potable water. Thejoint venture has to enter into a power/water sales agreement with the local utilities. After a definedperiod, during which the return on the equity of the investors will be effected and the loans taken outfor the project repaid, the ownership of the plant will be transferred to the local utility.
As any private investor, including the plant supplier, will limit his financial obligations to hisequity in the joint venture, the feasibility of such a model depends on the financial guarantees,especially for unforeseen events during construction and operation of the plant. Normally, aguarantee has to be given by the local government.
Up to now, BOT schemes have been sucessfully implemented for fossil power projects, buthave met some difficulties for application to large-size nuclear power plants. An appropriate variationon this model could possibly be elaborated for desalination plants as well as for small size nuclearpower plants which require a smaller investment.
The financing of desalination plants supplied by nuclear energy is facilitated by modulardesigns, which permit a step by step increment in overall plant size. The use of the MED jechnologytogether with the potential it presents for higher local participation in comparison with the morecomplex RO process, would reduce foreign currency requirements.
Finally, barge-mounted plants present a reduced financial risk because of their mobility.
63
8.2. PLANNING AND REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
8.2.1. Long term energy and water supply development
Large scale desalination of seawater requires a detailed assessment on a long term basis ofresources and of demand/supply taking into consideration all relevant aspects and assessing it incomparison with all other long term possible water supply options. Thus, seawater desalinationprojects cannot be justified only by a generic study comparing the water costs at the outlet of thevarious means of potable water production. Such a comparison only provides orders of magnitudefor the main parameters, which could be very helpful for the planner, but are not sufficient forinvestment decisions.
In the following, emphasis will be placed on some aspects of the assessment of seawaterdesalination using nuclear energy for long term energy and water supply, in the regional or nationalcontext.
At the regional level, the development of a desalination programme as part of an overallenergy and water programme should be justified on an economic basis by comparison with otherwater supply options together with the necessary water transport and distribution infrastructure andthe associated energy requirements.
If nuclear power is chosen as the energy source for seawater desalination, then it is essentialto have a long term national nuclear energy programme and the policy and strategy for implementingit. The special features of nuclear energy require the establishment of organizational structures,highly competent personnel, national infrastructures and substantial financial resources. Thedeployment of significant national resources is only possible if there is a firm commitment by thegovernment to the programme; this is the only way to achieve the expected benefits. A single nuclearpower reactor not integrated into a nuclear programme is an expensive proposition [25].
In this context, nuclear power plants, which compete favourably with fossil plants especiallyfor larger capacities, can be a solution for producing power through a grid, to provide the electricitydemand, including that of RO seawater desalination plants located at the sites of the waterconsumption. A few large centrally located nuclear complexes supporting (among other electricityconsumers) distributed RO plants, appear to be preferable to a system of coupled distillation/nuclearreactor concepts for a number of reasons. The main reason is that it gives a better flexibility forsiting desalination units and offers a strong economic advantage by minimizing water transportationcosts, which are far more expensive than electricity transportation costs.
Water storage, transport and distribution
The cost of desalinated seawater at the outlet of the desalination plant (presented in thisreport) will be substantially increased by the time it reaches the final customer.
Reservoirs for temporary storage of water will involve investments and hence, capital charges.There are also losses due to evaporation, if exposed to the atmosphere. Storage in aquifers is aneconomic and ecologically sound solution whenever possible. For large production capacities storagein closed tanks is not economic.
Transport would normally involve the construction of pipelines, with corresponding capitalcharges. Pumping will be needed in all cases, both due to the distance to be covered, and also forraising the water to the level where the consumer is located, which will always be higher thansea-level. Also, there are losses, which may amount to 15-20%, even with very efficient transportsystems. In Algeria, for example, current transport and distribution losses amount to about 40%,which is expected to be reduced to 20% within the next 10-15 years.
64
The longest distance to which desalted seawater is being transported currently is about 450km (from Jubail and Al Khobar to Riad in Saudi Arabia). The shorter the transport distance, thebetter it is from the economic point of view (see Annex IV).
Assurance of reliable supply
The fact that potable water is essential to sustain life, health and provide human comfortmeans that reliable supply for the population served must be assured under all conceivable conditions.Assurance of reliable supply also applies to industrial use because, without water, production wouldcome to a standstill.
No industrial installation, whether it is a desalination plant or a power plant, can have 100%availability and reliability. There are always planned as well as unplanned outages and thus measuresmust be taken to provide for uninterrupted supply of the minimum requirements at all times.Provisions for sufficient water storage capacity and redundancy by having more than one, andpossibly several, desalination units (trains) in parallel are measures included in the design of thedesalination plant. Optimization of redundancy is performed on a case by case basis, taking intoaccount expected availability, forced outage probability, cost of water storage and minimum supplyrequirements of the load served.
From the point of view of reliability of supply, the availability of unpolluted feed water(seawater) is also essential. Pollution of the sea through major oil spills, as shown by the dramaticexample of the 1991 Gulf war, is a danger, but even smaller accidental spills constitute a risk to betaken into account. Diversification of potable water sources, with several smaller desalination plantsspread out along the coast instead of one large centralized facility to serve the market, are measureswhich might be taken. Water costs will undoubtedly be higher, but the risk of supply interruptionwill be reduced.
Nuclear power plants are capital intensive, and must operate with high load factors to be ableto compete economically. Reserve units work typically with low load factors; for such units theoptions chosen would be low investment cost fossil fuelled units on a standby basis.
In general, increased reliability of supply always implies increased costs. The question to beanswered by the planner and, in the final instance, by the decision maker is: what is sufficientreliability, i.e. what is the acceptable risk.
The desalination plant can only function if it is supplied with energy, so reliable energy supplymust also be assured. Generating reserve capacity and redundancy are the only possible measures,because energy storage is not practical.
Uninterrupted supply of electricity is relatively easy to assure when the desalination plant isconnected to a reliable grid, which includes adequate reserve capacity and redundancy. In practice,electrical grids operate with outage probabilities well below 1 %. Should the grid not be sufficientlyreliable, on-site standby capacity will be needed to provide essential services during short gridoutages, which would practically not affect potable water production and supply.
Without grid interconnection, reliable electricity supply can only be assured by havingadequate standby reserve capacity and redundancy to allow for planned as well as unplanned outages,which might be quite long. This means more than one generating unit supplying the desalinationplant, and would lead to smaller size units and higher energy costs. The availability of base loadgenerating plants is high for nuclear as well as for fossil fuelled options. In the economic evaluation,a lifetime average load factor of 80% has been assumed, which for base load operated units ispractically the same as plant availability.
65
Reliable supply of heat can only be achieved by having adequate on-site reserve capacity andredundancy, similar to the case of electricity supply without grid connection. In this respect, modulardesigns are an asset.
Finally, the reliability of fuel supply is also to be assessed. Nuclear fuel will need lessstorage capacity than fossil fuel to ensure continuous operation. Long term assurance of supply offuel, both nuclear or fossil (oil, gas or coal) can be satisfied with relative ease if there are adequatenational resources. If fuel is to be imported, however, assurance of supply might become an issue,because international commerce in fuel may be subject to changing international situations, concerns,agreements, committments and policies. This is applicable not only to nuclear fuel, but also to oiland gas and to a lesser extent to coal.
8.2.2. Infrastructure and national participation
The following aspects concerning integration of seawater desalination and of nuclear energyin the infrastructure and organization of the country are emphasized.
Integration in the economy
Any industrial project requires certain national infrastructures and participation. For nuclearpower, this is especially relevant, and adequate minimum infrastructures and qualified personnel mustbe available to carry out these functions which are the responsibilities of national bodies and whichthus cannot be delegated abroad. Experience shows that national infrastructures can effectively bedeveloped, not only in industrialized but also in developing countries. However, experience alsoshows that infrastructure development as well as effective implementation of national participation,requires major sustained efforts involving by a wide range of governmental bodies and industrialsectors. The efforts required and the period needed will depend on the country's current developmentstatus and on past achievements in relevant activities.
The subject has been treated in detail in several IAEA publications [25, 26], and the IAEAhas developed an integrated package approach to nuclear power planning in developing countries.A nuclear power planning advisory service has been established by the IAEA to assist developingcountries, on request, in carrying out an overall assessment of their level of preparedness to undertakea nuclear power programme.
Project planning and implementation
There will be two separate but co-ordinated projects, the desalination plant and the plantproviding energy for the desalination plant. Each will follow the usual process of completing allsuccessive necessary steps consisting of overall planning, establishment of feasibility, safetyassessment, siting study and site qualification, acquisition (bidding-contracting), construction, erectionand commissioning and training to ensure sufficient and qualified personnel. Co-ordination is needed,to complete simultaneously the implementation of both. The preparatory phase of a large scale waterproduction project will require several years and a commensurate effort.
If a nuclear reactor is chosen as the energy source, then the time needed to completeacquisition, licensing, construction and commissioning of the reactor would probably be longer thanfor the desalination plant, consequently the nuclear power project would have the leading role.
Owner-operator
For small desalination plants (a few hundreds or thousands of m3/d capacity), which includetheir own on-site energy supply sources (heat or electricity or both), a single owner-operator, possiblythe organization responsible for water supply (including the supply of energy), seems to be the bestsolution.
66
For large desalination complexes, however, separate organizations, one responsible for thedesalination plant and another for the energy plant, might be more convenient. For a nuclear reactor,this seems to be especially indicated, owing to the unique, very different and high demands placedon the management and personnel of a nuclear power plant. Compliance with safety criteria andestablishment of a "safety culture" is essential for nuclear power, as is quality management,engineering support, maintaining the technical competence of personnel, radiation protection,regulatory and licensing requirements, etc.
A desalination plant must also be well managed, operated and maintained, but there is noradiation risk and the requirements derived from technical aspects are of a different nature. A watersupply authority or organization cannot take on the responsibility for constructing, operating andmaintaining a nuclear power plant. On the other hand, a utility capable of handling a nuclear projectmight be able to take on the responsibility for managing a desalination plant, but this would be outsideits normal scope of activities.
8.3. SAFEGUARDS AND NON-PROLIFERATION
International concerns regarding assurance of the use of nuclear energy for exclusivelypeaceful purposes are related only to the nuclear reactor and its fuel. The end use of the energyproduced, i.e. desalination of seawater or any other use, is in itself irrelevant.
For these reasons, a country will obtain nuclear technology, nuclear reactors, nuclearmaterials and equipment from a foreign supplier, only if it can provide adequate evidence of theirexclusively peaceful uses, to the full satisfaction of the potential supplier and the internationalcommunity. This situation prevails now and will also be the case for the foreseable future.
Other concerns regarding nuclear reactors, such as physical protection or third party liability,also need to be resolved through governmental committments, irrespective of the end use of theenergy produced.
8.4. PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
Experience shows that public and political acceptance of nuclear energy strongly depends onthe perception of the risks incurred and of the benefits obtained from using this energy source.Opponents tend to exaggerate risks and ignore benefits, and this view is often transmitted to the publicat large by the media.
Experience also shows that in addition to the overall perception of nuclear risks and benefits,the public is influenced by the so called NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome. This wouldnegatively affect the acceptance of a site for a nuclear reactor close to population centers, and wouldfavour more distant sites perceived as being beyond "my back yard". From the point of view ofcoupling nuclear energy with a desalination plant, this argument would favour a process requiringelectricity as an energy input and separate sites for energy production and seawater desalination.
The advanced reactor concepts currently being proposed by the nuclear industry share thecommon goal of achieving increased safety levels. This is expected to improve public acceptance ofnuclear energy, as well as to alleviate to some extent growing public concerns regardingenvironmental pollution and climate change caused by emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
Obviously, to gain public acceptance of the combination of using nuclear energy for theproduction and supply of safe and clean drinking water, it will have to be demonstrated credibly thatthere is no risk whatsoever of radioactive contamination of the product water.
67
Annex I
TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF REACTORS
69
1 PWR
1 General
Supplier/CountryDesign Name
2 Technical Data
Core Power (MWth)
Max Net Electric Output (MWe)
Cycle (for power conversion)
Pressure Vessel/TubeInside diameter (m)Length (m)
Number of Fuel Channels/Assemblies
ModeratorMediumPressure (MPa)Temperature (°C)
Primary SystemCoolantPressure (MPa)Temp in/out (°C)ConfigurationCooling Mode
FuelTypeEnrichment (%)Core/Assembly Height (m)Core/Assembly Width/Diameter (m)Number of Elements per AssemblyMass of Fuel in Core (t)
Core Power Density (MW/m3)
Refueling
Secondary SystemCoolantPressure (MPa)Temp m/out (°C)
a)
Atomenergoexport/CISAPVS-40
80
10
indirect
vessel1 94 5
241 assemblies
water128300
water128
278/312loop
forced circulation
U0285/10
1 8
74
off load
'water
4 01 50/300
b)
Atomenergoexport/CISAST-500
500
-
indirect
vessel5 3184
121 assemblies
water2 0
141 -205
water2 0
141/205integrated
natural circulation
U022 03 03 014351 0
269
off-load
water1 2
102/160
c)
INET/P R ChinaHR-200
200
15
indirect
vessel5 0136
156 assemblies
water2 2168
water2 2
135/200integrated
natural circulation
UO2
1 8/2 4/3 02 5
0 169141
20 1
27
off-load
water2 6
114/140
d)
AECL/CanadaSES-10
10
-
indirect
---
1 channel
water0 3 5
73 -95
water0 3 5
73/95pool, tank
natural circulation
UO22 5090 932
55
off-load
--
1. PWR
1. GeneralSupplier/Country
Design Name
2. Technical Data
Core Power (MWth)
Max. Net Electric Output (MWe)
Cycle (for power conversion)
Pressure Vessel/Tube:Inside diameter (m)Length (m)
Number of Fuel Channels/Assemblies
Moderator:MediumPressure (MPa)Temperature (°C)
Primary System:CoolantPressure (MPa)Temp, in/out (°C)ConfigurationCooling Mode
Fuel:TypeEnrichment (%)Core/Assembly Height (m)Core/Assembly Width/Diameter (m)Number of Elements per AssemblyMass of Fuel in Core (t)
Core Power Density (MW/m3)
Refueling
Secondary System:CoolantPressure (MPa)Temp in/out (°C)
e)
Geysir/Switzerland.GA/USAVevey/Switzerland
GEYSER
23
2
indirect
-
76
water0.72
155-166
water0.72
155/166pool, integrated
natural circulation
UZrH197
1.1840.08753
251 0946
5
off-load
water045
50/148
f)
Technicatome/France
THERMOS
100
-
indirect
vessel4.4108
32 assemblies
water1- 1.1
131- 144
water1- 1.1
131/144pool, integrated
forced circulation
U023 - 3 5
1.20.214
48(164)3.12
45
off-load
water0.8-0.996/137
g)
GA/USA
TRIGA
64
10
indirect
vessel
76 assemblies
water3
182-215
water3
182/215pool
forced circulation
UZrH19.7
100
off-load
Fréon R-1144.2
102/104
h)
Atomenergoexport/ciS
ATS- 150
536
180
indirect
vessel5.3
16.75
109 assemblies
water16
265-340
water16
265/340integrated
natural circulation
UO2
32.5
0.23829431 7
36
off-load
water4 5
185/290
-4K)
1 PWR
1 General
Supplier/Country
Design Name
2 Technical Data
Core Power (MWth)
Max Net Electric Output (MWe)
Cycle (for power conversion)
Pressure Vessel/TubeInside diameter (m)Length (m)
Number of Fuel Channels/Assemblies
ModeratorMediumPressure (MPa)Temperature (°C)
Primary SystemCoolantPressure (MPa)Temp in/out (°C)ConfigurationCooling Mode
FuelTypeEnrichment (%)Core/Assembly Height (m)Core/Assembly Width/Diameter (m)Number of Elements per AssemblyMass of Fuel in Core(t)
Core Power Density (MW/mî)
Refueling
Secondary SystemCoolantPressure (MPa)Temp in/out (°C)
!)
Westmghouse/USA
AP600
1933
600
indirect
vessel3987811 5885
145 assemblies
water155
2 7 9 9 - 3 1 5 5
water155
2799/3155loop
forced circulation
U02
3 6432560214264669
74
off-load
water5 2 6
223 9/271
j)
CN E A/A r go n t ina
CAREM
100
25
indirect
vessel2 8100
61 assemblies
water12 25
278-326
water12 25
278/326integrated
natural circulation
UO2
3 91 2
0 09077103
3044
off- load
water4 5
165/286
k)
Framatome/FranceTechnicatome/France
NP-300
950
300
indirect
vessel3 35899
97 assemblies
water1 5 5
3 1 2 - 2 7 8
water15 5
278/312loop
forced circulation
UO24 02 4 3
0214264295
off-load
water15.3
/293
I)
ABBCE/UK
SIR
1000
320
indirect
vessel5 8192
65 assemblies
water155
294-318
water1 5 5
294/318integrated
forced circulation
DO;3 3 - 4 0
3472
55
off-load
water5 5
/298
1. PWR
1. General
Supplier/Country
Design Name
2. Technical Data
Core Power (MWth)
Max. Net Electric Output (MWe)Cycle (for power conversion)
Pressure Vessel/Tube:Inside diameter (m)Length (m)
Number of Fuel Channels/Assemblies
Moderator:MediumPressure (MPa)Temperature (°C)
Primary System:CoolantPressure {MPa)Temp, in/out (°C)ConfigurationCooling Mode
Fuel.TypeEnrichment (%)Core/Assembly Height (m)Core/Assembly Width/Diameter (m)Number of Elements per AssemblyMass of Fuel in Core (t)
Core Power Density (MW/m^)
Refueling
Secondary System:CoolantPressure (MPa)Temp in/out (°C)
m)
ABB/Sweden
PIUS
2000
640
indirect
vessel1204 5 0
213 assemblies
water90
260-290
water90
260/290integrated
forced circulation
UO2< 3 5
2 502276
253805
72
off-foad
water4 0
/270
n)
Zarnowiec/PolandAtomenergoexport/CIS
VVER-440/213
1375
424
indirect
vessel
349 assemblies
water12.26
267-295
water12.26
267/295loop
forced circulation
UO2< 363 2
0 14412642
off-load
water4 6 1/259
o)
Ministry of AtomicEnergy and Industry/CIS
RUTA
20
-
-
__
61 assemblies
water0.2465 - 95
water0.2465 - 95pool
natural circulation
U023.510.08611.92
16.84
o f f - load
wate r0.455/85
P)
Baltic Plant,RDIPE/CIS
E-49
178
70
indi rec t
vesse 12.86.0
349 assemblies
water16.0290
water16.02 7 3 / 3 2 3
forced circulation
U02
21_---
of f - load
wate r3.65370/300
II. HTR
1. General
Supplier/CountryDesign Name
2. Technical Data
Core Power (MWth)
Max Net Electric Output (MWe)
Cycle (for power conversion)
Pressure Vessel/Tube:Inside diameter (m)Length (m)
Number of Fuel Channels/AssembliesModerator:MediumPressure (MPa)Temperature (°C)
Primary System:CoolantPressure (MPa)Temp, in/out (°C)ConfigurationCooling Mode
Fuel:TypeEnrichment (%)Core/Assembly Height (m)Core/Assembly Width/Diameter (m)Number of Elements per AssemblyMass of Fuel in Core (t)
Core Power Density (MW/m3)
Refueling
Secondary System-CoolantPressure (MPa)Temp in/out (°C)
a)
Siemens/GermanyHTR-Module
200
80
indirect
vessel59
2 5 0
1 pebble bed core
graphite-
400-870
helium60
250/700loop
forced circulation
UO;789 53 0
360.0002 5
3 0
on-loade
water14- 19
170/530
b)
GA/USAMHTGR
450
173
indirect
vessel7 22722 65
840
graphite-
helium7.1
260/704loop
forced circulation
UO2
< 19.9793
3 363
60
off-load
water1724/540
III. BWR
1. General
Supplier/CountryDesign Name
a)
ABB/SwedenBWR-90
2. Technical Data
Core Power (MWth)
Max. Net Electric Output (MWe)
Cycle (for power conversion)
Pressure Vessel/Tube:Inside diameter (m)Length(m)
Number of Fuel Channels/Assemblies
Moderator:MediumPressure (MPa)Temperature (°C)
Primary System:CoolantPressure (MPa)Temp, in/out (°C)ConfigurationCooling Mode
Fuel-TypeEnrichment (%)Core/Assembly Height (m)Core/Assembly Width/Diameter (m)Number of Elements per AssemblyMass of Fuel in Core (t)Core Power Density (MW/m3)
Refueling
Secondary System-CoolantPressure (MPa)Temp in/out (°C)
2350
720
direct
vessel5 6
206
500 assemblies
water70286
water70
/286loop
forced circulation
UO25 3.53.75
0.139610086
off-load
depending onuser concept
/286
IV. LMR
1. General
Supplier/Country
Design Name
a)
Criepi/JapanToshiba/Japan
45
2. Technical Data
Core Power (MWth)
Max Net Electric Output (MWe)
Cycle (for power conversion)
Pressure Vessel/Tube:Inside diameter (m)Length(m)
Number of Fuel Channels/Assemblies
Moderator:MediumPressure (MPa)Temperature CC)
Primary System:CoolantPressure (MPa)Temp, in/out ("QConfigurationCooling Mode
Fuel:TypeEnrichment (%)Core/Assembly Height (m)Core/Assembly Width/Diameter (m)Number of Elements per AssemblyMass of Fuel in Core (t)
Core Power Density (MW/m3)
Refueling
Secondary System:CoolantPressure (MPa)Temp in/out (°C)
125
48
indirect
vessel2.5
2 3 0
18 assemblies
0.1
sodiumo.l
355 -510pool
forced circulation
u., Pu (met.)206.9
0.182171.9
off-load
sodium
310/475
-4-J
V. HWR
1. General
Supplier/CountryDesign Name
2. Technical Data
Core Power (MWth)
Max Net Electric Output (MWe)
Cycle (for power conversion)
Pressure Vessel/TubeInside diameter (m)Length (m)
Number of Fuel Channels/Assemblies
ModeratorMediumPressure (MPa)Temperature (°C)
Primary SystemCoolantPressure (MPa)Temp in/out (°C)ConfigurationCooling Mode
FuelTypeEnrichment (%)Core/Assembly Height (m)Core/Assembly Width/Diameter (m)Number of Elements per AssemblyMass of Fuel in Core (t)
Core Power Density (MW/m3)
Refueling
Secondary SystemCoolantPressure (MPa)Temp m/out(°C)
a)
AECL/CanadaCANDU-3
1439
450
indirect
tube
232 channels
heavy water
heavy water99
260/310loop
forced circulation
UO2nat0 50 137
5 3 2
13
on-loadt
water4 6
/260
b)
NPC/lndiaPHWR-220
790220
indirecttube0.08255.43
306 assemblies
heavy water075
44-65
heavy water87
249/293loop
forced circulation
UO?nat
049500817
19470
on-load
water4075/251
c)
NPC/lndiaPHWR-500
1730500
indirecttube0.08255.43
392 assemblies
heavy water08
55-80
heavy water10 1
260/304loop
forced circulation
U02nat6 3
0 10337
920
on-load
water4 15/253
VI . LWGR
1. General
Supplier/CountryDesign Name
2 Technical Data
Core Power (MWth)
Max Net Electric Output (MWe)
Cycle (for power conversion)
Pressure Vessel/TubeInside diameter (m)Length (m)
Number of Fuel Channels/Assemblies
Moderator.MediumPressure (MPa)Temperature (°C)
Primary System:CoolantPressure (MPa)Temp in/out (°C)ConfigurationCooling Mode
FuelTypeEnrichment (%)Core/Assembly Height (m)Core/Assembly Width/Diameter (m)Number of Elements per AssemblyMass of Fuel in Core (t)
Core Power Density (MW/m3)
Refueling
Secondary SystemCoolantPressure (MPa)Temp in/out (°C)
a)
Min is t ry of AtomicEnergy andIndustrv / CIS
R KM
150
-
-
tube0.1187 . 1 2
220
graphiteatmospheric400
water7.85
138/265integrated nucromodunatural circulation
U02
230. 1073018 .15
3 .46
of f - load
water1.290/140
b)
Minis t ry of AtomicEnergy andIndustry / CIS
ATU-2
125
3 7 . 8
d i rec t
tube0. 1084.4
532
graphite
atmospheric600
boi 1 ing wa te r6.7260/283
e loopnatural circulation
uo23 - 3.630.08861 3 . 5
1 . 7 4
of f - load
„_
Annex II
LEVELIZING METHODOLOGY
The method presented in this Annex is used for calculating and comparingthe costs of electricity generation of nuclear and conventional thermalstations. It is not intended to be substituted for establishing budgets andfinancial requirements by each electricity utility for its own needs. Thepresent worth values are employed in the costs evaluation, and the levelizeddiscounted electricity generation costs are calculated.
The calculation can in principle be performed either in current moneyterms, with nominal cost escalation and a nominal interest/discount rate, orin constant money terms, with cost escalation relative to general inflation('real' escalation) and a 'real' interest/discount rate (i.e. net ofinflation). Utilities prefer to use current money term to estimate costs asclosely as possible to actual values, inter alia, since tariff rates are basedon cash flow requirements. For the purpose of common comparison, thediscounting method in constant money terms is recommended, inter alia, by aGroup of Experts of UNIPEDE [27] . All costs are expressed in constant money,and costs spread over a period are weighted by a discounting factor. Relativeprice fluctuations are taken into account in the form of relative pricechanges in constant money with respect to the GDP price index. Thus, thevalues, expressed in constant value monetary units and discounted to a commonreference date, of all the costs can be aggregated. This method is brieflydescribed below.
Assuming r is a real discount rate over the project period, and the dateof commissioning is taken as the reference date (To), the total costsdiscounted to the date of commissioning are expressed as:
c = z —h— <1>t=Tc (1 + r) o
where C is the total discounted cost (or present value of cost)Ct is the expenditure at date tT0 is the date of commissioningTc is the starting date of constructionTe is the end of decommissioning date
If the costs Ct, are escalating, the equation (1) becomes
= Z — ? ——————————— (2)t-Tc (l+r)°
Co (unescalated) costs at date te real escalation rateThe real escalation rate may be positive (escalation beyond general
inflation) or negative (escalation less than general inflation).
Are the expenditures of a certain category J (e.g. O&M costs) uniformlydistributed over each year, they can be assumed to occur at mid-year. Thediscounted costs are then
C - ? 2 ———— "JV L (3)J t=Tc+l (l+r)r~T°-*CJ,t expenditure for category j in year t
79
Tc and Te may be replaced by the dates at which the expenditure forcategory j start and end (e.g. To commissioning date, TL end of plantlife).
The total plant costs indlude capital investments costs, operation andmaintenance costs, fuel cycle costs and decommissioning cost. To calculatethe levelized costs per kW.h, these aggregate discounted costs are divided bythe aggregate discounted benefits, i.e. the kW.h produced by the power stationthroughout its lifetime.
The total discounted energy E is defined as follows:
TL EE = 57 ———————-——,———
t=T0+l
TL is the end of operation date (end of plant life)Et is the energy produced in year t, assumed to be uniformlydistributed over year t.
The energy Et, is the product of the net station output P and thenumber of equivalent full load operating hours Ht. The discounted energy Eis thus expressed by the equation:
TLT P- Ht V H.E = A ————JL , = P 2_, ____t____ = PH (5)
t=T0+l (1+r) ° * t=T0+l (l + r)11"10"
where H is the total discounted operating hoursP is the continuous net station output
If the number of full load operating hours Ho is constant over plantlife, the discounted operating hours are
. f * \ —i. iH = H0 1 - d + r)r
L = economic plant life.
The levelized discounted electricity generation costs Ce± assumed to beconstant through the lifetime of the power station, are defined as the ratioof the total discounted costs to the total discounted energy over thestation's lifetime by the formula:
TC
cclL -t=Tc+l (Ur)-o-* (7)
*LZ
t=T0+l (1+r)
The denominator can also be calculated from (5) and (6).The levelized cost Ce± can be viewed as the rate which must be charged
to each unit of electric energy (kW.h) to recover exactly the present value ofthe total plant costs. The levelized cost does not depend on the discountingdate. By convention, the date of commissioning is generally chosen as thereference date.
80
For meaningful cost comparisons, it is essential to use a common set of>mic parameters, comprising:economic parameters, comprising:the reference date for which the monetary units and exchange rates aredefined
- the real (constant money) discount rate (e.g. 5% of 10%)the economic life of the power station (e.g. 30 years)the assumed operating mode of the power station (and hence the totaldiscounted electricity generation).Sensitivity case studies with variations of these basic parameters can be
carried out.
81
Annex III
DESALINATION COST ANALYSIS
Case 1. Energy source: nuclear; water product quality: EC standard.
Case 2. Energy source: fossil; water product quality: EC standard.
Case 3. Energy source: nuclear; water product quality: WHO standard.
Case 4. Energy source: fossil; water product quality: WHO standard.
Notes and abbreviations.
83
CASE 1 ENERGY SOURCE NUCLEARWATER PRODUCT QUALITY EC STANDARD
SPREADSHEET ORGANIZATION:PLANT CHARACTERISTICSPERFORMANCE INPUT DATACOST INPUT DATAECONOMIC PARAMETER INPUT DATAPERFORMANCE CALCULATIONSCOST CALCULATIONSECONOMIC EVALUATIONSSUMMARY
START ROW tt
173797139156219281
END ROW Ü
3595137154217279434587
ROU *1718192021222324252627 i2829 i30 i31 i32 i33 i34 t35 i3637383940414243444546474849 i50515253 i54 i55 i
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
CASEPLANT TYPEPRODUCT
REACTOR TYPESIZE CATEGORYSIZE RANGE MUe (MWt)SELECTED NET OUTPUT, MWe (MUt)ASSUMED LOCATIONSERVICE DATEAVG ANNUAL COOLING UATER TEMP, CPUR PLT DESIGN COOLING WATER TEMP, CRO DESIGN COOLING UATER TEMP, CSEAUATER TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS, PPMPRODUCT DRINKING WATER STANDARD
PERFORMANCE INPUT DATABASE POWER PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA:NET EFFICIENCY, XBOILER EFFICIENCYCONDENSER RANGE, CCONDENSER COOLING UTR PUMP HEAD, BARCONDENSER COOLING UTR PUMP EFFICIENCYCONDENSER BACKPRESSURE, cm HgCONDENSER END POINT ENTHALPY, kj/kgCONDENSING TEMPERATURE, CPLANNED OUTAGE RATEUNPLANNED OUTAGE RATEDUAL-PURPOSE PLT PERFORMANCE DATA:BACKPRESS STM UITH INTERMEDIATE LOOPTURBINE BACKPRESSURE, cm HgCONDENSING TEMPERATURE, CCONDENSER END POINT ENTHALPY, kJ/kg
1-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
PURLARGE
> 600 MUe900.00
NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
32.808.001.700.904.70
2329.0037.000.1000.110
30.0074.00
2424.00
2-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
PURMEDIUM-LARGE> 600 MWe
600.00NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
32.808.001.700.904.70
2329.0037.000.1000.110
30.0074.00
2424.00
3-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
PWRMEDIUM
100-600 MWe300.00
NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
32.808.001.700.904.70
2329.0037.000.1000.110
30.0074.00
2424.00
4-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
PWRSMALL
< 100 MUe50.00
NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
28.008.001.700.904.70
2329.0037.000.1000.110
30.0074.00
2424.00
5-NNUCLEAR
HEAT ONLYHEAT REACTORMEDIUM-LARGE> 200 MWt
500.00NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.0500.050
N/AN/AN/A
6-NNUCLEAR
HEAT ONLY
HEAT REACTORMEDIUM-SMALL> 200 MUt
200.00NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.0500.050
N/AN/AN/A
7-NNUCLEAR
HEAT ONLYHEAT REACTORSMALL -LARGE< 200 MUt
100.00NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.0500.050
N/AN/AN/A
8-NNUCLEARHEAT ONLY
HEAT REACTORSMALL-SMALL< 200 MWt
50.00NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.0500.050
N/AN/AN/A
NOTES
11
23
4i.
oo
56 i5758 i59 i60 i61 i6263(A i65 i66 i67 i68 i69 i70 i71 i72 i73 i74 i75 i767778 i79 i80 i81 i82 i83 i84 i85 i86 i87 i88 i89 i90 )91 i92 i93 i94 i95 i96979899
100 i101 i102103 i104 i105 i106 i107108 i109110
ENTHALPY IN CONOENSATE, kJ/kgINTERMEDIATE LOOP FLASH STM TEMP, CINTERMEDIATE LOOP COND. RTRN TEMP, CINTERMEDIATE LOOP PRESSURE LOSS, BARINTEMEDIATE LOOP PUMP EFFICIENCY
MED WATER PLT PERFORMANCE DATA:DESALINATION TECHNOLOGYPRODUCT WATER TDS, PPMMAXIMUM BRINE TEMPERATURE, CGOR, kg PROOUCT/kg STEAMNUMBER OF EFFECTSUNIT SIZE, CU.H/DSEAWATER/PROOUCT FLOW RATIOSEAWATER HEAD + PRESS LOSS, BARSEAWATER PUMP EFFICIENCYWATER PLANT SPEC. PWR USE kWe/CU.M/DWTR PLT PLANNED OUTAGE RATEWTR PLT UNPLANNED OUTAGE RATEMEMBRANE WATER PLT PERFORMANCE DATA:NO. STAGES TO MEET WATER STANDARDOUTPUT PER UNIT, CU.MSEAWATER TDS, PPHRO PRODUCT WATER TDS, PPMRECOVERY RATIOSEAWATER PUMP HEAD, BARSEAWATER PUMP EFFICIENCYBOOSTER PUMP HEAD, BARBOOSTER PUMP EFFICIENCYSTAGE 1 HIGH HO PUMP PRESS RISE, BARSTAGE 1 HIGH HEAD PUMP EFFICIENCYSTG 1 HYDRAULIC COUPLING EFFICIENCYENERGY RECOVERY EFFICENCYSTG 2 HYDRAULIC COUPLING EFFICIENCYSTAGE 2 HIGH HO PUMP PRESS RISE, BARSTAGE 2 HIGH HEAD PUMP EFFICIENCYOTHER SPECIFIC POWER USE, kWe/CU.M/DRO PLANT AVAILABILITY=.2rss,ZA::s=ss=::=.=====:5ï = = == = = =: = iiE = = = = =COST INPUT DATA= = = = = = = = = = := = = =•= = = = = = = = = ::SS.Er = = = ======
POWER PLANT COST DATA:SPEC. CONSTR. COST, $/kWe (t/kWt)ADDITION!. CONSTR. COST, S/kWe (S/kWt)TOTAL CONSTR. COST, S/kWe <$AWOCONSTRUCTION LEAD TIME, MONTHSSPECIFIC MM COST, $/MWheSPECIFIC FUEL COST, $/MWhe ($/MWht)LEVEL I ZED ANNUAL DECOMM. COST, M$FUEL ANNUAL REAL ESCALATION, X
309.9071.5068.501.000.90
LT-HED25.0065.0011.50
1448,0009.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
224,00038,500200.000.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.96524.000.90
0.04080.91
==============
1500.00150.001650.0072.009.006.006.320.00
309.9071.5068.501.000.90
LT-MED25.0065.0011.50
1448,0009.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
224,00038,500200.000.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.96524.000.90
0.04080.91
==============
1700.00170.001870.0060.0012.007.004.210.00
309.9071.5068.501.000.90
LT-MED25.0065.0011.50
1448,0009.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
224,00038,500200.000.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.96524.000.90
0.04080.91
2200.00220.002420.0060.0012.008.002.110.00
309.9071.5068.501.000.90
LT-MED25.0065.0011.50
1448,0009.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
224,00038,500200.000.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.96524.000.90
0.04080.91
==============
2500.00250.002750.0048.0015.0010.000.350.00
N/A138.00123.001.000.90
LT-MEO25.00120.0021.00
2748,0005.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
'
550.0055.00605.0048.004.002.701.300.00
N/A138.00123.001.000.90
LT-MED25.00120.0021.00
2748,0005.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
750.0075.00825.0048.004.503.300.520.00
N/A138.00123.001.000.90
LT-MED25.00120.0021.00
2748,0005.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AH/AN/AN/AN/A
==============
==============
1000.00100.001100.0036.005.003.300.260.00
N/A138.00123.001.000.90
LT-MED25.00120.0021.00
2724,0005.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
==============
==============
1500.00150.001650.0036.006.003.300.130.00
788910
11
12813
1415
161617
111112 i113 I114 i115 i116 i117 i118 i119 i120 t121 i122 i123124125 i126 i127 i128 i129 i130 i131 i132 i133 i134 i135136137 i138139140141142 i143144 i145146147 i148149 i150151152 i153154 i155156157158159160161162163164165
THERMAL WATER PLANT COST DATA:CORRECTION FACTOR FOR UNIT SIZEBASE UNIT COST, S/CU.M/DINTERMEDIATE LOOP UNIT COST, S/CU.M/DWATER PLT COST CONTG'CY FACTORWATER PLT OWNERS COST FACTORWATER PLT LEAD T I HE, MONTHSAVERAGE MANAGEMENT SALARY, S/YRAVERAGE LABOR SALARY, S/YRSPECIFIC O&M SPARE PARTS COST, S/CU.MSPECIFIC O&M CHEH COST, S/CU.MWATER PLT O&M INS COST,* BASE CAPMEMBRANE WATER PLANT COST DATA:BASE UNIT COST, S/CU.M/DWATER PLT COST CONTG'CY FACTORWATER PLT OWNERS COST FACTORWATER PLT LEAD TIME, MONTHSAVERAGE MANAGEMENT SALARY, S/YRAVERAGE LABOR SALARY, S/YRO&M MEMBRANE REPLACEMENT COST, S/CU.MO&M SPARE PARTS COST, S/CU.MSPECIFIC CHEMICAL COST, S/CU.MWATER PLT O&M INS COST.X BASE CAP
MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT:WATER PLT LEAD TIME, MONTHSECONOMIC PARAMETERS INPUT DATA= r ===================================CASE 1: 5X INTEREST RATE
AFUOC RATE, X/YRLN-91S FIXED CHARGE RATE, XPURCHASED ELECTRICITY COST, S/kWh
CASE 2: 8X INTEREST RATEAFUDC RATE, X/YRLN-91S FIXED CHARGE RATE, XPURCHASED ELECTRICITY COST, S/kWh
CASE 3: 10X INTEREST RATEAFUDC RATE, X/YRLN-91S FIXED CHARGE RATE, XPURCHASED ELECTRICITY COST, S/kWh
PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONSSINGLE-PURPOSE PLT PERFORMANCE:THERMAL POWER, MWtPLANT GROSS OUTPUT, MWePLANT AUX LOADS, MWeCONDENSER COOLING WTR FLOW, kg/sCONDENSER COOLING WTR PUMP POWER, MWeOPERATING AVAILABILITY
0.901440.00100.00
0.100.0560.00
60000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
1350.000.100.0536.00
60000.0027000.00
0.120.030.070.50
48.00==============
5.006.51
N/A
8.008.88
N/A
10.0010.61
N/A
2743.90947.3747 37
55061.5910.980.801
0.901440.00100.00
0.100.0548.00
60000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
1350.000.100.0530.00
60000.0027000.00
0.120.030.070.50
48.00
5.006.51
N/A
8.008.88
N/A
10.0010.61
N/A
1829.27631.5831.58
36707.727.32
0.801
0.901440.00100.00
0.100.0536.00
60000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
1350.000.100.0524.00
60000.0027000.00
0.120.030.070.50
48.00
5.006.51
N/A
8.008.88
N/A
10.0010.61
N/A
914.63315.7915.79
18353.863.66
0.801
0.901440.00100.00
0.100.0524.00
60000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
1350.000.100.05
18.0060000.0027000.00
0.120.030.070.50
48.00
5.006.51
N/A
8.008.88
N/A
10.0010.61
N/A
178.5752.632.63
3839.330.77
0.801
0.901680.00100.00
0.100.0536.00
60000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
N/AN/A
0.05N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A
5.006.510.04
8.008.880.05
10.0010.610.06
500.00N/A
5.00N/AN/A0.903
0.901680.00100.00
0.100.0524.00
60000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
N/AN/A
0.05N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A
5.006.510.04
8.008.880.05
10.0010.610.06
200.00N/A
2.00N/AN/A0.903
0.901680.00100.00
0.100.0524.00
60000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
N/AN/A
0.05N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A
5.006.510.04
8.008.880.05
10.0010.610.06
100.00N/A
1.00N/AN/A0.903
1.001680.00100.00
0.100.05
18.0060000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
N/AN/A
0.05N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A
5.006.510.04
8.008.880.05
10.0010.610.06
50.00N/A
0.50N/AN/A0.903
1819
202122
oo-o
166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
DUAL-PURPOSE POWER PLANT PERFORMANCE:BACKPRESSURE TURB. EXHAUST FLOW, kg/sLOST ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION, HWeNET ELECTRICITY PRODUCED, MWeTOTAL HEAT TO WTR PLT, MWtALTERNATE REJECT HEAT CHECK, MWtINTERMEDIATE LOOP FLOW RATE, kg/sINTERMEDIATE LOOP PUMPING POWER, MWeFLASH STEAM FLOW TO MED, kg/sTHERMAL WATER PLANT PERFORMANCE:MAXIMUM WATER PLT CAPACITY, CU.M/DAYNUMBER OF UNITSSEAWATER FLOW, kg/SINCREMENTAL SEAWATER PUMPING PWR, MWeWATER PLANT INTERNAL POWER USE, HWeWTR PLT+INT.LOOP+SEAWTR PUMP PWR, MWeWTR PLT OPERATING AVAILABILTIYCOMBINED PWR/UTR PLT CAPACITY FACTORANNUAL WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/YRAVRG DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/DRO WATER PLANT PERFORMANCE:PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DAYNUMBER OF RO UNITSSEAWATER FLOW, kg/sSTAND-ALONE SEAWATER PUMPING PWR, MWeCONTIGUOUS SEAWATER PUMPING PWR, MWeBOOSTER PUMP POWER, HWeSTAGE 1 HIGH HEAD PUMP POWER, MWeENERGY RECOVERY, MWeSTAGE 2 HIGH HEAD PUMP POWER, MWeOTHER POWER, HWeTOTAL STAND-ALONE POWER USE, MWeTOTAL CONTIGUOUS POWER USE, MWeANNUAL AVG. WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/YRAVG. DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/DAYSPEC. <S-A) PWR CONSUMPTION, kWh/CU.MSPEC.(CONT) PWR CONSUMPTION, kWh/CU.MNET PWR PLNT SALEABLE PWR (S-A), MWeNET PWR PLNT SALEABLE PWR (CONT), HWe
MAXIMUM RO PLANT OUTPUT:PRODUCT CAPACITY, CU.M/DAYNUMBER OF RO UNITSSEAWATER FLOW, kg/sTOTAL POWER USE, MWeANNUAL AVG. WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/YRAVG. DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/DAYNET POWER PLANT SALEABLE POWER, MWeCOST CALCULATIONS=======-================ —— --________
877.6075.31824.691857.021858.60
U8087.7617.37
800. A4
795,31717.0082,846
5.5466.0188.920.9070.750
217,616,444596,209
795,31734.00
18410.123.670.007.13
194.3268.8626.8632.45195.57191.89
264,164,562723,739
5.905.79
704.43708.11
3,730,100156.0086,345900.00
1,238,952,6663,394,391
0.00
585.0750.21549.791238.011239.06
98725.1711.58533.63
530,21112.00
55,2303.69
44.0159.280.9070.750
145,077,629397,473
530,21123.00
12273.412.450.004.75
129.5445.9017.9021.63130.38127.93
176,109,708482,492
5.905.79
469.62472.07
2,486,733104.0057,563600.00
825,968,4442,262,927
0.00
292.5325.10274.90619.01619.53
49362.595.79
266.81
265,1066.00
27,6151.8522.0029.640.9070.750
72,538,815198,736
265,10612.00
6136.711.220.002.3864.7722.958.9510.8265.1963.96
88,054,854241,246
5.905.79
234.81236.04
1,243,36752.0028,782300.00
412,984,2221,131,464
0.00
_-_,...--__ —— -
65.274.90
45.10138.10130.12
11012.981.2959.53
59,1462.00
6,1610.464.916.660.9070.750
16,183,68944,339
59,1463.00
1369.120.270.000.5314.455.122.002.4114.5414.27
19,645,37853,823
5.905.7935.4635.73
207,2289.004,79750.00
68,830,704188,577
0.00
_- — ___ — __.__
N/AN/AN/A
500.00N/A7974.48
0.94215.52
391,0349.00
22,6294.5132.4636.970.9070.844
120,462,083330,033
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
200.00N/A3189.79
0.3786.21
156,4144.009,0521.81
12.9814.790.9070.844
48,184,833132,013
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
============£=
N/AN/AN/A
100.00N/A1594.90
0.1943.10
78,2072.004,5260.906.497.390.9070.844
24,092,41766,007
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
zzz=rrr==s=rrr
==============
N/AN/AN/A
50.00N/A797.450.09
21.55
39,1032.002,2630.453.253.700.9070.844
12,046,20833,003
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
==============---_------_-__
2324
2526
27
28
2930
0000 221 THERMAL WATER PLANT COSTS:
222 NUMBER OF UNITS223 COMPARATIVE NUMBER224 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION225 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION226 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR NO. OF UNITS227 WATER PLT SPECIFIC BASE COST, S/CU.M/D228 INC. IN/OUTFALL SPEC. BS CT, S/CU.M/D229 INTERMEDIATE LOOP COST, S/CU.M/0230 TOTAL SPECIFIC BASE COST, S/CU.M/D231 NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL232 WATER PLT O&M MGMT COST,M$/Y233 NUMBER OF LABOR PERSONNEL234 WATER PLT O&M LABOR COST.MS/Y235 WATER PLT ADJUSTED BASE COST, MS236 WATER PLT1 OWNERS COST, MS237 WATER PLT CONTINGENCY ,M$238 WATER PLT TOT CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$239 WATER PLT O&M COST.HS/YR240241 RO WATER PLANT COSTS:242 NUMBER OF UNITS243 COMPARATIVE NUMBER244 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION245 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION246 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR NO. OF UNITS247 PROCESS PLT SPECIFIC COST,$/CU.M/D248 STND-ALN IN/OUTFALL SPEC.CT, S/CU.H/D249 STND-ALN UTR PLNT SPEC. CT, S/CU.M/D250 NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL251 O&M MGMT COST,M$/Y252 NUMBER OF LABOR PERSONNEL253 O&M LABOR COST,M$/Y254 STND-ALN UTR PLT ADJUSTED BASE CT,M$255 CONTIGUOUS WTR PLT ADJUSTED BS CT.MS256 WATER PLT OWNERS COST, MS257 WATER PLT CONTINGENCY ,M$258 STND-ALN WTR PLT TOT CONSTRUCT CT, MS259 CONTIGUOUS WTR PLT TOT CONSTR CT, MÎ260 WATER PLT O&M COST.MS/YR261262 MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):263 NUMBER OF UNITS264 COMPARATIVE NUMBER265 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION266 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION267 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR NO. OF UNITS268 PROCESS PLT SPECIFIC COST, S/CU.M/D269 INCRMTL IN/OUTFALL SPEC. CT, S/CU.M/D270 WATER PLANT SPEC. BASE COST, S/CU.M/D271 NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL272 NUMBER OF LABOR PERSONNEL273 WATER PLT O&M MGMT COST.MS/Y274 WATER PLT O&M LABOR COST.MS/Y275 WATER PLT ADJUSTED BASE COST, MS
17.0014.003.0000.6720.725939.6027.06100.001066.66
191.1475
2.01848.3342.4289.07979.8220.45
34.0014.0020.0000.4360.725978.7550.48
1029.2319
1.1475
2.01818.57778.4240.9385.95945.44899.0765.36
156.0014.00
142.0000.0200.725978.756.44
985.1971138
4.263.74
3674.84
12.0014.00-2.0000.7630.763988.4631.82100.001120.28
140.8463
1.71593.9829.7062.37686.0514.23
23.0014.009.0000.5770.725978.7559.37
1038.1214
0.8463
1.71550.42518.9427.5257.79635.74599.3844.05
104.0014.0090.0000.0740.725978.757.57
986.3249118
2.943.18
2452.71
6.0014.00-8.0000.8880.888
1151.3241.99100.001293.31
90.5448
1.30342.8617.1436.00396.017.90
12.0014.00-2.0000.7630.763
1029.6478.34
1107.989
0.5448
1.30293.73272.9614.6930.84339.26315.2722.68
52.0014.0038.0000.2760.725978.759.99
988.742789
1.622.41
1229.36
2.0014.00
-12.0000.9830.983
1274.5586.96100.00U61.51
60.3626
0.7186.444.329.0899.842.48
3.0014.00
-11.0000.9590.959
1294.33142.751437.08
60.3626
0.7185.0076.554.258.9298.1788.425.82
9.0014.00-5.0000.8230.823
1111.2310.81
1122.05844
0.481.18
232.52
9.0014.00-5.0000.8230.823
1244.58116.20100.001460.79
120.7256
1.52571.2228.5659.98659.7612.32
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
4.0014.00
-10.0000.9350.935
1413.27167.65100.001680.91
70.4239
1.05262.9213.1527.61303.675.68
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
2.0014.00
-12.0000.9830.983
1486.98221.21100.001808.19
60.3630
0.80141.417.0714.85163.33
3.31N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
2.0014.00
-12.0000.9830.983
1652.19291.89100.002044.09
50.30
220.6079.934.008.3992.322.03
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
oo
276 WATER PIT OWNERS COST,H$277 WATER PIT CONTIMGEHCY ,MS278 WATER PLT TOT CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$279 WATER PLT O&M COST. MS/YR281 ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS282 ==r=azii=============i==============z283 CASE 1: 5X INTEREST RATE28A -POWER PLANT COST285 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, M$286 AFUOC, H$287 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, MS288 LEVEL I ZED ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, MS289 FUEL REAL ESCALATION FACTOR290291 ANNUAL FUEL COST, M$292 ANNUAL O&H COST, Hi293 ELEC. PWR COST (HEAT ONLY), MS/YR294 TOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, MS295 LEVEL I ZED POWER COST, $/kWh296297 -THERMAL (MED) PLANT:298 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR299 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MS300 AFUDC ,M$301 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$302 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, M$/YR303 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR30A WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR305 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR306 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M307308 -STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:309 HED EQUIVALANT OUTPUT:310 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR311 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$312 AFUOC ,M$313 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$314 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR315 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR316 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR317 WATER CT, OiM CHARGE, MS/YR318 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M319320 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:321 HED EQUIVALANT OUTPUT:322 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR323 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$324 AFUDC ,MS325 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$326 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR327 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR328 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR329 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MÏ/YR330 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
183.74385.864244.44298.94
1485.00234.071719.07111.831.0037.8956.84
N/A212.870.034
217,616,444979.82127.111106.93
72.0116.6719.6420.450.59
264,164,562945.4471.79
1017.2366.170.0052.5565.360.70
264,164,562899.0768.27967.3462.930.00
51.5665.360.68
122.64257.532832.88200.10
1122.00145.551267.5582.461.0029.4750.52
N/A166.660.040
145,077,629686.0570.32756.3749.2013.0515.3714.230.63
176,109,708635.7439.98675.7243.960.00
41.1444.050.73
176,109,708599.3837.69637.0741.440.0040.3744.050.71
61.47129.081419.91101.03
726.0094.18820.1853.351.0016.8425.26
N/A97.560.046
72,538,815396.0130.07426.0827.727.649.007.900.72
88,054,854339.2616.96356.2223.170.0024.0822.680.79
88,054,854315.2715.76331.0421.530.0023.6322.680.77
11.6324.41268.5617*96
= = = = = = = = == = = = =
137.5014.09151.599.861.003.515.26
N/A18.980.054
16,183,68999.844.99
104.836.821.742.362. AS0.83
19,645,37898.173.66
101.836.620.006.275.820.95
19,645,37888.423.3091.725.970.006.165.820.91
N/AN/AN/AN/A
302.5031.01333.5121.701.0010.6715.811.5851.07
N/A
120,462,083659.7650.10709.8546.1851.0710.9212.321.00
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/A
165.0016.91181.9111.831.005.227.120.6325.32
N/A
48,184,833303.6715.18
318.8520.7425.324.375.681.16
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/A
==============
====-====-=r-—
110.008.35
118.357.701.002.613.950.3214.84
N/A
24,092,417163.338.17
171.5011.1614.842.183.311.31
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/A
=========== ===
82.506.2688.765.771.001.302.370.169.74
N/A
12,046,20892.323.4495.766.239.741.092.031.58
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
331332 -MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):3Î3 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR334 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,H$335 AFUDC ,M$336 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$337 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M338339 CASE 2: 8X INTEREST RATE340 -POWER PLANT COST341 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MS342 AFUDC, M$343 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, H$344 LEVELIZEO ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, H$345 FUEL REAL ESCALATION FACTOR346347 TOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, MS348 LEVEL I ZED POWER COST, S/kWh349350 -THERMAL (MED) PLANT:351 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MS352 AFUOC, MS353 TOTAL WATER PLANT INVESTMENT, MS354 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR355 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR356 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR357 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR358 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M359360 -STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:361 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$362 AFUOC ,M$363 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$364 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR365 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR366 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR367 WATER CT, OÄM CHARGE, MS/YR368 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M369370 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:371 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$372 AFUDC ,M$373 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$374 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR375 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR376 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR377 WATER CT, OiH CHARGE, MS/YR378 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M379380 -MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):381 ANNUAL WATER PROO, CU.H/YR382 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,MS383 AFUOC ,M$384 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$385 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
1,238,952,6664244.44435.064679.50
0.60
1485.00385.671870.67166.17
1.00267.210.042
979.82207.801187.70105.5020.9324.6520.450.79
945. A4115.691061.1494.260.0065.9665.360.85
899.07110.021009.0989.630.0064.7365.360.83
1,238,952,6664244.44706.284950.72
0.84
825,966,4442832.88290.373123.25
0.72
1122.00238.041360.04120.811.00
205.010.049
686.05114.16800.2171.0816.0518.9114.230.83
635.7464.20699.9462.170.00
50.6144.050.89
599.3860.53659.9158.620.0049.6644.050.86
825,968,4442832.88471.393304.28
0.88
412,984,2221419.91145.541565.46
0.76
726.00154.03880.0378.171.00
122.380.058
396.0148.46444.4739.489.58
11.297.900.94
339.2627.14366.4032.550.00
30.2122.600.97
315.2725.22340.4930.250.0029.6422.680.94
412,984,2221419.91236.271656.19
0.94
68,830,704268.5627.53296.090.85
137.5022.88160.3814.251.0023.370.067
99.847.99
107.839.582.142.912.481.06
98.175.83
104.019.240.007.725.821.16
88.425.2593.678.320.007.585.821.11
68,830,704268.5644.69313.25
1.05
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
302.5050.34352.8431.341.00
60.71N/A
659.7680.73740.4965.7860.7113.6412.321.27
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
165.0027.46192.4617.101.0030.58
N/A
303.6724.29327.9629.1330.585.465.681.47
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
110.0013.46123.4610.971.00
18.11N/A
163.3313.07176.4015.6718.112.733.311.65
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
82.5010.1092.608.231.00
12.19N/A
92.325.4997.818.6912.191.362.032.01
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
386387 CASE 3: 10X INTEREST RATE388 -POWER PLANT COST389 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, H$390 AFUDC, MS391 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, MS392 LEVEL I ZED ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, MS393 FUEL REAL ESCALATION FACTOR394393 TOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, MS396 LEVE L I ZED POWER COST, $/kWh397398 -THERMAL (MED) PLANT:399 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST400 AFUDC ,M$401 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$402 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR403 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR404 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR405 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR406 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M407408 -STAND -ALONE RO PLANT:409 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MS410 AFUDC, MS411 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,MS412 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR413 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR414 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR415 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR416 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M417418 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:419 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MS420 AFUDC, MS421 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$422 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR423 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR424 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR425 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR426 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M427428 -MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):429 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR430 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$431 AFUDC ,M$432 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$433 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.HA3A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = -: = = = = =: —— ——— ——435436437438439440
1485.00491.541976.54209.671.00
310.710.049
979.82263.631243.45131.9024.3328.6620.450.94
945.44145.301090.75115.710.0076.7065.360.98
899.07138.181037.25110.030.0075.2665.360.95
1,238,952,6664244.44891.335135.78
0.97==srr====rs===
1122.00301.881423.88151.04
1.00235.250.056
686.05144.07830.1288.0618.4221.7014.230.98
635.7480.44716.1875.970.0058.0744.051.01
599.3875.84675.2271.630.0056.9844.050.98
825,968,4442832.88594.913427.79
1.01
726.00195.34921.3497.731.00
141.940.067
396.0160.86456.8748.4611.1213.097.901.11
339.2633.93373.1939.590.0035.0422.681.11
315.2731.53346.8036.790.0034.3822.681.07
412,984,2221419.91298.181718.10
1.08
137.5028.88166.3817.651.0026.770.076
99.849.98
109.8311.652.463.332.481.23
98.177.27
105.4511.190.008.855.821.32
88.426.5594.9710.070.008.685.821.25
68,830,704268.5656.40324.96
1.20
302.5063.53366.0338.831.0068.20
N/A
659.76101.40761.1580.7468.2016.3712.321.47
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
165.0034.65199.6521.181.0034.67
N/A
303.6730.37334.0435.4334.676.555.681.71
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
110.0016.91126.9113.461.0020.60
N/A
163.3316.33179.6619.0620.603.273.311.92
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
82.5012.6895.1810.101.0014.06
N/A
92.326.8499.1610.5214.061.642.032.34
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
vON)442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495
SUMMARY
CASEPLANT TYPEPRODUCT
SELECTED NET OUTPUT, HUe (MWt)PRODUCT DRINKING WATER STANDARD
SUMMARY CASE 1: 5X I NT & AFUOC RATE-LEVELIZED POWER COST, $/kWh-PURCHASED POWER COST, $/kWh-THERMAL MED PLANT (OPTIMIZED)
WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, HWeWATER COST, i/CU.M
-STAND-ALONE RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, HUeWATER COST, t/CU.H
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, */CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MAXIMUM OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, HWeWATER COST, $/CU.M
SUMMARY CASE 2: 8X I NT & AFUDC RATE-LEVELIZED POWER COST, S/kWh-PURCHASED POWER COST, S/kWh-THERMAL MED PLANT (OPTIMIZED)
WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-STAND-ALONE RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, Ï/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (HED EQ. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, HWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MAXIMUM OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, HWeWATER COST, $/CU.M
SUMMARY CASE 3: 10X I NT & AFUDC RATE-LEVELIZED POWER COST, $/kWh-PURCHASED POWER COST, $/kWh
1-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
900.00EEC
0.034N/A795317735.990.59
795317704.430.70
795317708.110.68
37301000.000.68
0.042N/A795317735.990.79
795317704.43
0.85795317708.110.83
37301000.000.84
0.049N/A
2-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
600.00EEC
0.040N/A530211490.660.63
530211469.620.73
530211472.070.71
24867330.000.72
0.049N/A530211490.660.83
530211469.620.89
530211472.070.86
24867330.000.88
0.056N/A
3-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
300.00EEC
0.046N/A265106245.330.72
265106234.810.79
265106236.040.77
12433670.000.76
0.058N/A
265106245.330.94
265106234.810.97
265106236.040.94
12433670.000.94
0.067N/A
4-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
50.00EEC
0.054N/A5914638.450.835914635.460.955914635.730.91
2072280.000.85
0.067N/A5914638.451.06
5914635.461.165914635.731.11
2072280.001.05
0.076N/A
5-NNUCLEAR
HEAT ONLY
500.00EEC
N/A0.04
391034N/A
1.00N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.05
391034N/A
1.27N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.06
6-NNUCLEAR
HEAT ONLY
200.00EEC
N/A0.04
156414N/A
1.16N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/A0.05
156414N/A
1.47
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.06
============7-N
NUCLEAR
HEAT ONLY
100.00EEC
N/A0.0478207
N/A1.31
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/A0.05
78207N/A
1.65N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/A0.06
— — — — — — — _—
8-NNUCLEAR
HEAT ONLY
50.00EEC
N/A0.04
39103N/A
1.58N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.0539103
N/A2.01
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/A0.06
NOTES
496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550
-THERMAL MED PLANT (OPTIMIZED)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-STAND ALONE RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MAXIMUM OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
INVESTMENT COSTS • 8X INTEREST RATEPOWER PLANT
SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION COST, S/kW- POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, M$- POWER PLANT IDC, M$TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, MSSPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/kW
POWER i THERMAL MED PLANT- POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS- POWER PLANT IDC, M$-PWR PLT COST PORTION OF WTR PROD M$• MED PLANT CONSTRUCTION, M$- MED PLANT IDC, MSTOTAL INVESTMENT COST, M$
- MED CAPACITY, CU.M/DSPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/CU.M/D
POWER & S-A RO (MED EOUIV.) PLANT- POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, M$• POWER PLANT IDC, H$-PWR PLT COST PORTION OF WTR PROD M$- RO PLANT CONSTRUCTION, M$- RO PLANT IDC, M$TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, M$
- RO (MED EOUIV.) CAPACITY, CU.M/DSPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/CU.M/D
POWER & CONT. RO (MAX.) PLANT- POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, M$- POWER PLANT IDC, MS- RO PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS- RO PLANT IDC, MSTOTAL INVESTMENT COST, MS
- RO (MAX.) CAPACITY, CU.M/DSPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/OJ.M/D
795317735.770.94
795317704.430.98
795317708.110.95
37301000.000.97
1650148538618712079
14853863419802081529
7953171923
1485386406945116
1468795317
1845
14853864244706
68213744000
1822
530211490.510.98
530211469.62
1.01530211472.070.98
24867330.001.01
1870112223813602267
1122238248686114
10485302111977
112223829663664995
5302111877
112223828334714664
24960001869
265106245.26
1.11265106234.81
1.11265106236.041.07
12433670.001.08
24207261548802933
72615416139648605
2651062282
72615419133927558
2651062103
726154
14202362536
12480002032
5914638.431.23
5914635.461.32
5914635.731.25
2072280.001.20
2750138231603208
13823371008
145591462450
1382347986
151591462547
1382326945474
2160002193
391034N/A
1.47N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
60530350353706
3035035366081
10933910342796
156414N/A
1.71N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
82516527192962
1652719230424520
1564143327
78207N/A
1.92N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
110011013123
1235
11013
12316313300
782073834
39103N/A
2.34N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
1650831093
1852
831093925
190391034869
551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567568569570571572573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587
====rr===============================COST SUMMARY: 8X INTEREST RATE-POWER PLANT COST
TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, M»LEVELIZEO ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, M$TOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, M$LEVELIZEO POWER COST, S/kWh
-THERMAL (MED) PLANT:TOTAL WATER PLANT INVESTMENT, M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.MWATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, $/CU.MWATER CT, O&M CHARGE, $/CÜ.MTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
-STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.MWATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.HWATER CT, O&M CHARGE, S/CU.MTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.MWATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.MWATER CT, O&M CHARGE, S/CU.MTOTAL WAT ER COST, Ï/CU.M
-MAXIMUH RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.MWATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE. S/CU.MWATER CT, O&M CHARGE, S/CU.MTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
1870.67166.17267.210.042
1187.700.480.210.090.79
1061.140.360.250.250.85
1009.090.340.250.250.83
4950.720.350.250.240.84
1360.04120.81205.010.049
800.210.490.240.100.83
699.940.350.290.250.89
659.910.330.280.250.86
3304.280.360.280.240.88
880.0378.17122.380.058
444.470.540.290.110.94
366.400.370.340.260.97
340.490.340.340.260.94
1656.190.360.340.240.94
160.3814.2523.370.067
107.830.590.310.151.06
104.010.470.390.301.16
93.670.420.390.301.11
313.250.400.390.261.05
352.8431.3460.71
N/A
740.490.550.620.101.27
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
192.4617.1030.58
N/A
327.960.600.750.121.47
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
123.4610.9718.11
N/A
176.400.650.860.141.65
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
92.608.2312.19
N/A
97.810.721.130.172.01
N/AN/AN/AN /AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
CASE 2 ENERGY SOURCE FOSSILWATER PRODUCT QUALITY EC STANDARD
SPREADSHEET ORGANIZATION:PUNT CHARACTERISTICSPERFORMANCE INPUT DATACOST INPUT DATAECONOMIC PARAMETER INPUT DATAPERFORMANCE CALCULATIONSCOST CALCULATIONSECONOMIC EVALUATIONSSUMMARY
START ROW #173797139156219281441
END ROW #3595137154217279434587
ROW «17181920212223 i24 i25 i26 i27 i2829 i30 i31 i32 i33 i34 i35 i363738394041424344454647484950515253 i54 i55 i
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS=SZ=Z r r=3== ==========================
CASEPLANT TYPEPRODUCTFUEL TYPEPOWER CONVERSION TECHNOLOGYSIZE CATAGORYSIZE RANGE MWe (MWt)SELECTED NET OUTPUT, MWe (MWt)ASSUMED LOCATIONSERVICE DATEAVG ANNUAL COOLING WATER TEMP, CPWR PIT DESIGN COOLING WATER TEMP, CRO DESIGN COOLING WATER TEMP, CSEAWATER TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS, PPMPRODUCT DRINKING WATER STANDARDPERFORMANCE INPUT DATA===±SSgr =============================
BASE PLANT PREFORMANCE DATA:NET EFFICIENCY, XBOILER EFFICIENCYCONDENSER RANGE, CCOOLING WATER PUMP HEAD, BARCOOLING WATER PUMP EFFICIENCYCONDENSER BACKPRESSURE, cm HgCONDENSER END POINT ENTHALPY, kj/kgCONDENSING TEMPERATURE, CPLANNED OUTAGE RATEUNPLANNED OUTAGE RATE
DUAL-PURPOSE PLT PERFORMANCE DATA:BACKPRESSURE STEAM:TURBINE BACKPRESSURE, cm HgCONDENSING TEMPERATURE, CCONDENSER END POINT ENTHALPY, kJ/kg
==============
1-FFOSSIL
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
COALBOILERLARGE
> 500 MWe800.00
NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
39.000.88798.001.700.904.70
2376.0037.000.1000.110
30.0074.00
2601.00
2-FFOSSIL
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
COALBOILER
MED I UM- LARGE> 500 MWe
500.00NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
39.000.88798.001.700.904.70
2376.0037.000.1000.110
30.0074.00
2601.00
3-FFOSSIL
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLYOIL-GAS
COMBINED CYCLEMEDIUM
100-500 MWe400.00
NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
46.000.88798.001.700.904.70
2376.0037.000.1000.110
30.0074.00
2601.00
==============
=========x====4-F
FOSSILHEAT & POWERPOWER ONLYOIL-GAS
COMBINED CYCLEMED I UM- SMALL100-500 MWe
150.00NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
==============
46.000.88798.001.700.904.70
2376.0037.000.1000.110
30.0074.00
2601.00
==============5-F
FOSSILHEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY01 L -GAS
GAS- TURBINESMALL
< 100 MWe100.00
NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
31.000.8879
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.1000.110
N/AN/AN/A
6-FFOSSIL
POWER ONLYOIL
LOW-SPD DIESELSMALL
< 100 MWe50.00
NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
==============
==============
50.000.8879
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.0500.050
N/AN/AN/A
= = = = = = = = == = = = =
==============
7- fFOSSIL
HEAT ONLYCOAL
BOILERMEDIUM
100-500 MWt500.00
NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.0500.050
N/AN/AN/A
==============
==============8-F
FOSSILHEAT ONLY
OIL-GASBOILER
MEDIUM-SMALL< 100 MWt
100.00NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00EEC
==============
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.0500.050
N/AN/AN/A
= = = = =
NOTES=====
11
23
44
o\ 56 i5758596061626364 I65 i66676369707172737475767778798081828364856687888990919293 i94 i95 i96979899 i
100 i101 i102103 i104 i105 i106 i107108 i109110
ENTHALPY IN CONDENSATE, kJ/kg
THERMAL WATER PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA:DESALINATION TECHNOLOGYPRODUCT WATER TOS, PPMMAXIMUM BRINE TEMPERATURE, CGOR, kg PRCOUCT/kg STEAMNUMBER OF EFFECTSUNIT SIZE, CU.M/DSEAUATER/PROOUCT FLOU RATIOSEAUATER HEAD + PRESS LOSS, BARSEAUATER PUMP EFFICIENCYWATER PLANT SPEC. PWR USE kWe/CU.M/DWTR PLT PLANNED OUTAGE RATEWTR PLT UNPLANNED OUTAGE RATEMEMBRANE WATER PLT PERFORMANCE DATA:NO. STAGES TO MEET WATER STANDARDOUTPUT PER UNIT, CU.MSEAWATER TOS, PPMPRODUCT WATER TDS, PPMRECOVERY RATIOSEA WATER PUMP HEAD, BARSEA WATER PUMP EFFICIENCYBOOSTER PUMP HEAD, BARBOOSTER PUMP EFFICIENCYSTAGE 1 HIGH HD PUMP PRESS RISE, BARSTAGE 1 HIGH HEAD PUMP EFFICIENCYSTG 1 HYDRAULIC COUPLING EFFICIENCYENERGY RECOVERY EFFICENCYSTG 2 HYDRAULIC COUPLING EFFICIENCYSTAGE 2 HIGH HD PUMP PRESS RISE, BARSTAGE 2 HIGH HEAD PUMP EFFICIENCYOTHER SPECIFIC POWER USE, kWe/CU.M/DRO PLANT AVAILABILITYCOST INPUT DATAPOWER PLANT COST DATA:SPEC. CONSTR. COST, $/kWe (J/kWt)ADDITIONL CONSTR. COST, î/kWe <I/kWt)TOTAL CONSTR. COST, $/kWe ($/kWt)CONSTRUCTION LEAD TIME, MONTHSSPECIFIC O&M COST, $/MWeh (J/MUth)ASSUMED BASE PRICE OF OIL, S/BBLASSUMED BASE PRICE OF COAL, $/T
(INCLUDES $10/T TRANSPORT COST)FUEL ANNUAL REAL ESCALATION, X
309.90
LT-MED25.0070.0012.20
1648,000
8.501.700.900.0830.0300.065
224000.0038500.00200.00
0.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.96524.000.90
0.04080.91
1200 00120.001320.0048.003.00
N/A60.000.00
309.90
LT-MED25.0070.0012.20
1648,000
8.501.700.900.0830.0300.065
224000.0038500.00200.00
0.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.96524.000.90
0.04080.91
1400.00140.00
1540 0048 003 00
N/A60.000.00
309.90
LT-MED25.0070.0012.20
1648,000
8.501.700.900.0830.0300.065
224000.0038500.00200.00
0.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.96524.000.90
0.04080.91
500.0050.00550.0036.005.0025.50
N/A0.00
309.90
LT-MED25.0070.0012.20
1648,000
8.501.700.900.0830.0300.065
224000.0038500.00200.00
0.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.96524.000.90
0.04080.91
600.0060.00660.0036.005.0025.50
N/A0.00
N/A
LT-MED25.00100.0017.00
2348,000
7.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
224000.0038500.00200.00
0.501.700.902.700.9082.000.800.9650.900.96524.000.90
0.04080.91
400.0040.00440.0024.006.0025.50
N/A0.00
N/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
224000.0038500.00200.00
0.501.700.902.700.9082.000.800.9650.900.96524.000.90
0.04080.91
1000.00100.001100.00
18.004.0025.50
N/A0.00
N/A
LT-MED25.00120.0021.00
2848,000
5.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
400.0040.00440.0036.001.00
N/A60.000.00
N/A
LT-MED25.00120.0021.00
2848,000
5.001 700.900.0830.0300.065
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
400.0040.00440.0012.001.00
25.50N/A
0.00
788910
11
12813
1415
16
ZZuoz
6l8l
£00 0V/NV/N
00' lV/N
ocrooi
==============
90'0I9'0locroi
SO'099'800'8
•70 '015'9ocrs
==============V/N
V/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/N
OS'0020'0owo00 '000/2DO'0000900'8lSO'0Ol 'O
00'089l06'0
£06 '0V/NV/N
OO'SV/N
OO'OOS
90'0I9'0lOO'Ol
SO'098'8oo'g
70'0IS'9OO'S
V/N
V/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/N
OS'0020'00*0 '000 '000/2DO'00009oo -nSO'0Ol 'O
00'099l06'0
£06 '0V/NV/N
OS'2OS '2SOO'OOl
==============V/N
I9'0lOO'Ol
V/N98'800'8
V/NIS'9OO'S
=============3
00'8>
OS'0/O'O£0'021'000 '000/2DO'0000900 '9£SO'0O L ' O00'OS£l
V/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/N
V/NV/N
108'0V/NV/N
OO'SOO'SOl8S'22£
==============
V/NI9'0lOO'Ol
V/N88'800'8
V/NIS'9OO'S
==============
00 '8>
OS'0/O'O£0'021'000 '000/200 '0000900 '9£SO'0Ol 'OOO'OSEL
OS'0020 '0OWO00' 00012DO'0000900 '9£SO'0Ol 'O
00'009l06' 0
IOB'0S9'06£'OSZVOS'/OS'/Sl60'92£
V/NI9'0lOO'Ol
V/N89'900'8
V/NIS'9OO'S
===ss=r =======
00 'BT
OS'0/O'O£0'021'000 '000/200 '0000900 '9£SO'0Ol'Ooo'osa
OS'0020'0owro00 '000/200 '0000900'«SO'0Ol'O
oo'oim06' 0
109'092'2/£'>££U00 '0200 '02V/S '698
===========:==
V/NI9'0lOO'Ol
V/N88'8OO'B
V/NIS'9OO'S
===========c==
==============DO'85
OS'0/O'O£0'021'000 '000/2DO'0000900 '9£SO'0Ol 'O00'OS£l
OS'0020 '0OVO'O00 '000/2DO'0000900 '9£SO'0oroOO'OVH06'0
108'099-178 l '£S££200 '5200'S2SSO'2821
V/ NI9'0tOO'Ol
V/N88'8OO'S
V/NIS'9OO'S
00 '8V
OS'0/O'O£0'021'000 '000/200 '0000900 '9£SO'0Ol 'OOO'OSf l
OS'0020 '00-70 '000 '000/200'0000900'8ïSO'0O l 'O
O O ' O V V l06'0
108'0SV/60'S9£/£U'2VU 2V882' ISOZ
V/NI9'0lOO'Ol
V/N8S'800'9
V/NIS'9OO'S
00 '8»
OS'0/O'O£0'021'000 '000/200 '0000900 '9£SO'0Ol 'OOO'OSEl
OS'0020 '0OWO00'000/2DO'0000900 '09SO'0O l ' O
OO'OVVl06'0
AiMiaVIIVAV 3NUVa3dO3«H 'H3nOd dHOd »IM ONPOOD »3SN3QN03
S/ß5( '«Old Sin ONP003 a3SN3QNOO3MH 'SOV01 XnV INVld
anw 'indino ssoao iNvid)KH 'Ü3n0d 1VHH3H1
:33NVHüOd3)id lld 3SOdünd-310NIS
SNoiivinaiva aoNvwaojssdqn^/$ '1S03 AlI3!Hi0313 Q3SVH3»nd
X '31V* 39ÜVH3 03XH S16-N1ax/x '3ivH 3 und v 9 issasiNi
31VÜ !S3d31Nt XOl :£ 3SV3
<W/$ '1S03 A113iai3313 03SVH3ïndX '31VÜ 33ÜVH3 03XIJ S16-N1ax/% '3ivü oonjv s isaaaiNi
31VÜ 1S3S31NI X8 -Z 3SV3
4M/$ '1S03 AiI3I«:3313 03SVH3andX '31VÜ 33ÜVHD Q3XIJ S16-N1HA/X '31VÜ 300JV T 1S3Ü31NI
3 i Vü 1S3Ü31NI XS :l 3SV3
=ViVO lOdNI H313HVüVd 3IHON033
SH1NOH'3HU OV31 lld Ü31VH:indino oa HOHIXVH
dV3 3SVa X'1S03 SNI HSO lld ü31VnH'n3/$ '1S03 1V3IH3H3 3!J133dS
H'TO/$ '1S03 SiaVd 3SVdS HSOH'03/S 'lN3H33Vld3)J 3NVSaW3H HÎO
»A/$ 'xavivs aoavT 30v»3AvdA/S 'AÜV1VS 1N3H3DVNVH 30VX3AV
SHiNOW'3HIl OV31 lld X31VnÜ013VJ 1S03 Sd3NnO lld H31VH
a013VJ A3/01N03 1S03 lld d3iVfl0/H'n3/$ '1S03 UNO
:V1VQ 1S03 INVld M31Vrt 0«
dV3 3SV8 X'1S03 SNI HSO lld M31VrtW'n3/$ '1S03 H3H3 HÎO 3IJI33dS
H'n3/J '1S03 SSIlddOS MW OH133dSdA/s 'AMVIVS aoavi SOVMSAV
SA/$ 'AdVIVS 1N3H30VNVH 33Vd3AVSH1NOW'3HI1 OV31 lld d31Vn
d013VJ 1S03 Sd3NflO lld d31Vrtd013Vd A3i01N03 1S03 lld d31V«
Q/H'n3/$ '1S03 UNO 3SV83ZIS 1INH dOj d013VJ NOI133dd03:viva 1S03 INVId d31Vrt !VWd3Hi
591•791£91291191091651851/SI951SSl
i VSl£51
' 251ISlOSl
l ZMi VVli 2M
IVl6£l9£l9£lS£l££l2£l0£l621821/2l921521VZl£21221121OZL611911/U911SU£11211III
o.
166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
DUAL-PURPOSE PIT PERFORMANCE:BACKPRESS TURB EXHAUST STM FLOU, kg/sLOST ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION, HWeNET ELEC PROD, MUeTOTAL HEAT TO WTR PLT, MUtALTERNATE REJECT HEAT CHECK, MUt
DRY STEAM TO MED, kg/sTHERMAL WATER PLANT PERFORMANCE:MAXIMUM WATER PLT CAPACITY, CU.M/OAYNUMBER OF UNITSSEAWATER FLOW, kg/sINCREMENTAL SEAWATER PUMPING PWR, MUeWATER PLANT POWER USE, MWeWATER PLT PLUS SEAWATER PUMP PWR, MWeWTR PLT OPERATING AVAILABILTIYCOMBINED PWR/WTR PLT CAPACITY FACTORANNUAL WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/YRAVG. DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/DRO WATER PLANT PERFORMANCE:PRODUCT CAPACITY, CU.M/DAYNUMBER OF RO UNITSSEAWATER FLOW, kg/sSTAND-ALONE SEAWATER PUMPING PWR, MWeCONTIGUOUS SEAWATER PUMPING PWR, MWeBOOSTER PUMP POWER, MWeSTAGE 1 HIGH HEAD PUMP POWER, MWeENERGY RECOVERY, MWeSTAGE 2 HIGH HEAD PUMP POWER, MWeOTHER POWER, MWeTOTAL STAND-ALONE POWER USE, MWeTOTAL CONTIGUOUS POWER USE, MWeANNUAL AVG. WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/YRAVG. DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/DAYSPEC. POWER CONSUM. (S-A), kWh/CU.MSPEC. POWER CONSUM. (CONT), kWh/CU.MNET PLANT SALEABLE POWER(S-A), MWeNET PLANT SALEABLE POWER(CONT), MWeMAXIMUM RO PLANT OUTPUT:PRODUCT CAPACITY, CU.M/DAYNUMBER OF RO UNITSSEAWATER FLOW, kg/sTOTAL POWER USE, MWeANNUAL AVG. WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/YRAVG. DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/DAYNET POWER PLANT SALEABLE POWER, MWeCOST CALCULATIONS
451.1195.57704.431035.071063.46
446.15
470,28110.0046,266
1.7839.0340.810.9070.750
128,679,259352,546
470,28120.0010,886
2.170.004.21
114.9040.7215.8819.19115.64113.47
156,203,730427,955
5.905.79
684.36686.53
3,315,644139.0076,751800.00
,101,291,2593,017,236
0.00
281.9459.49440.51646.92665.75
278.85
293,9257.00
28,9161.1124.4025.510.9070.750
80,424,537220,341
293,92513.006,8041.360.002.63
71.8125.459.93
11.9972.2870.92
97,627,331267,472
5.905.79
427.72429.08
2,072,27887.0047,969500.00
688,307,0371 , 885 , 773
0.00
166.8229.17370.83382.19402.31
164.74
173,6464.00
17,0831.15
14.4115.560.9070.750
47,513,417130,174
173,6468.004,0200.800.001.5642.4315.035.867.0842.7041.90
57,676,529158,018
5.905.79
357.30358.10
1,657,82270.0038,376400.00
550,645,6291,508,618
0.00
62.5610.94139.06143.32150.86
61.78
65,1172.006,4060.435.405.830.9070.750
17,817,53248,815
65,1173.00
1,5070.300.000.58
15.915.642.202.66
16.0115.71
21,628,69859,2575.905.79
133.99134.29
621,68326.0014,391150'. 00
206,492,111565,732
0.00
N/AN/A100.00222.58
N/A
95.94
140,9173.00
11,4172.28
11.7013.970.9070.750
38,557,910105,638
140,9176.003,2620.650.001.0336.5812.204.765.7536.5735.92
46,805,440128,234
6.236.1263.4364.08
392,27817.009,081100.00
130,295,012356,973
0.00
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
184,0498.004,2600.850.001.3547.7815.936.227.5147.7746.92
61,131,902167,485
6.236.122.233.08
196,1399.004,54050.00
65,147,506178,4860.00
N/AN/AN/A
500.00N/A
215.52
391,0349.00
22,6294.5132.4636.970.9070.844
120,462,083330,033
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
100.00N/A
43.10
78,2072.004,5260.906.497.390.9070.844
24,092,41766,007
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
24
2526
27
28
2930
VO
221 THERMAL WATER PLANT COSTS:222 NUMBER OF UNITS223 COMPARATIVE NUMBER224 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION225 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION226 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR NO. OF UNITS227 WATER PLT SPECIFIC BASE COST,$/CU.M/D228 INC IN/OUTFALL SPEC. BS CT, Ï/CU.M/D229230 TOTAL SPECIFIC BASE COST, S/MGD231 NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL232 WATER PLT O&M MGMT COST,M$/Y233 NUMBER OF LABOR PERSONNEL234 WATER PLT O&M LABOR COST.MS/Y235 WATER PLT ADJUSTED BASE COST,H$236 WATER PLT OWNERS COST,M$237 WATER PLT CONTINGENCY ,M$238 WATER PLT TOT CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$239 WATER PLT O&M COST,M$/YR240241 RO WATER PLANT COSTS:242 NUMBER OF UNITS243 COMPARATIVE NUMBER244 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION245 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION246 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR NO. OF UNITS247 PROCESS PLT SPECIFIC COST,$/CU.M/D248 STNO-ALN IN/OUTFALL SPEC.CT, S/CU.M/D249 STND-ALN WTR PLNT SPEC. CT.Î/CU.M/D250 NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL251 WATER PLT OSM MGMT COST,M$/Y252 NUMBER OF LABOR PERSONNEL253 WATER PLT O&M LABOR COST,M$/Y254 STND-ALN UTR PLT ADJUSTED BASE CT,M$255 CONTIGUOUS WTR PLT ADJUSTED BS, M$256 WATER PLT OWNERS COST.MS257 WATER PLT CONTINGENCY ,Mt258 STND-ALN WTR PLT TOT CONSTRUCT CT ,M$259 CONTIGUOUS WTR PLT TOT CONSTR CT, M$260 WATER PLT O&M COST.MÏ/YR261262 MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT:263 NUMBER OF UNITS264 COMPARATIVE NUMBER265 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION266 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION267 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR NO. OF UNITS268 PROCESS PLT SPECIFIC COST,$/CU.M/D269 INCRMTL IN/OUTFALL SPEC. CT, Î/CU.M/D270 WATER PLANT SPEC. BASE COST, Ï/CU.M/D271 NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL272 NUMBER OF LABOR PERSONNEL273 WATER PLT O&M MGMT COST,M$/Y274 WATER PLT O&M LABOR COST,H$/Y275 WATER PLT ADJUSTED BASE COST.MS
10.0014.00-4.0000.8020.802
1040.0117.86
1057.8713
0.7860
1.63497.4924.8752.24574.6112.62
20.0014.006.0000.6220.725978.7562.29
1041.0413
0.7860
1.63489.58460.2924.4851.41565.46531.6339.23
139.0014.00
125.0000.0300.725978.7510.00988.75
64132
3.843.57
3278.35
7.0014.00-7.0000.8660.866
1122.4221.55
1143.9710
0.6050
1.35336.2416.8135.31388.36
8.46
13.0014.00-1.0000.7440.744
1003.8075.17
1078.9710
0.6050
1.35317.14295.0415.8633.30366.29340.7725.02
87.0014.0073.0000.1130.725978.7512.07990.82
42109
2.522.96
2053.26
4.0014.00
-10.0000.9350.935
1211.3748.24
1259.618
0.4841
1.10218.7310.9422.97252.635.52
8.0014.00-6.0000.8440.844
1139.8492.79
1232.638
0.4841
1.10214.04197.9310.7022.47247.22228.6115.34
70.0014.0056.0000.1750.725978.7519.53998.28
34100
2.042.70
1654.97
2.0014.00
-12.0000.9830.983
1274.5571.41
1345.966
0.3627
0.7487.654.389.20
101.232.61
3.0014.00
-11.0000.9590.959
1294.33137.361431.69
60.3627
0.7493.2384.284.669.79
107.6897.356.32
26.0014.0012.0000.5340.725978.7528.91
1007.661668
0.961.83
626.44
3.0014.00
•11.0000.9590.959
1380.62213.901594.52
70.4237
1.01224.6911.2323.59259.524.87
6.0014.00-8.0000.88«0.888
1199.29100.871300.16
70.4237
1.01183.21169.009.1619.24
211.61195.2012.64
17.0014.003.0000.6720.725978.7566.97
1045.721256
0.721.52
410.21
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
8.0014.00-6.0000.8440.844
1139.8490.65
1230.508
0.4842
1.12226.47209.7911.3223.78261.57242.3016.18
9.0014.00-5.0000.8230.823
1111.2388.37
1199.61843
0.481.15
235.29
9.0014.00-5.0000.8230.823
1244.58116.201360.79
120.7256
1.52532.1126.6155.87614.5912.13
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
2.0014.00
-12.0000.9830.983
1486.98221.211708.19
60.3630
0.80133.596.6814.03154.30
3.27
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330
WATER PIT OWNERS COST, MSWATER PIT CONTINGENCY ,H$WATER PIT TOT CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$WATER PIT O&M COST,M$/YR
ECONOMIC EVALUATIONSCASE 1: 5X INTEREST RATE-POWER PLANT COST
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MSAFUOC, MSTOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, MSLEVEL IZED ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, MSFUEL REAL ESCALATION FACTORSPECIFIC FUEL COST, $/MWheANNUAL FUEL COST, MSANNUAL O&M COST, MS/YRELEC. PWR COST (HEAT ONLY), MS/YRTOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, MSLEVEL I ZED POUER COST, S/kWh
-THERMAL (MED) PLANT:ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YRTOT CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$AFUDC ,MSTOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YRTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
-STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:MED EQUIVALANT OUTPUT:ANNUAL WATER PRCO, CU.M/YRTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,MSAFUDC ,MSTOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YRTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
•CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:MED EQUIVALANT OUTPUT:ANNUAL WATER PROO, CU.M/YRTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$AFUDC ,M$TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, O&M CHARGE, HS/YRTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
163.92344.233622.58266.08
1056.00108.241164.2475.741.00
21.87122.7816.84
N/A215.350.038
128,679,259574.6174.54649.1542.2324.0810.2812.620.69
156,203,730565.4642.94608.4039.580.0035.3739.230.73
156,203,730531.6340.37572.0037.210.0034.7039.230.71
102.66215.592268.85167.17
770.0078.92848.9255.221.00
21.8776.7310.53
N/A142.480.041
80,424,537388.3639.81428.1727.8515.876.808.460.73
97,627,331366.2927.81394.1025.640.0023.4025.020.76
97,627,331340.7725.87366.6523.850.0022.9625.020.74
82.75173.771828.74134.16
220.0016.70236.7015.401.00
32.6191.5314.03
N/A120.960.043
47,513,417252.6319.18271.8117.688.264.405.520.75
57,676,529247.2218.77265.9917.300.0014.6715.340.82
57,676,529228.6117.36245.9716.000.0014.3915.340.79
31.3265.78692.2251.35
99.007.52
106.526.931.00
32.6134.325.26
N/A46.520.044
17,817,532101.235.06
106.296.913.171.692.610.81
21,628,698107.688.18
115.857.54• o.oo5.646.320.90
21,628,69897.357.39
104.746.810.005.546.320.86
20.5143.07453.2932.95
44.002.2046.203.011.0048.3933.954.21
N/A41.170.059
38,557,910259.5219.71279.2318.160.005.384.870.74
46,805,440211.6116.07227.6814.810.0017.1112.640.95
46,805,440195.2014.82
210.0213.660.0016.8012.640.92
11.7624.71260.0017.14
55.002.0557.053.711.0030.0011.861.58
N/A17.150.043
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
61,131,902261.5719.86281.4418.310.0016.5216.180.83
61,131,902242.3018.40260.7016.960.0016.2316.180.81
N/AN/AN/AN/A
==============
220.0016.70236.7015.401.008.5333.723.951.58
54.65N/A
120,462,083614.5930.73645.3241.9854.6510.9312.130.99
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/A
44.001.0945.092.931.0015.0011.860.790.3215.90
N/A
24,092,417154.305.75
160.0510.4115.902.193.271.32
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
331332 -MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):333 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR334 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,H$335 AFUOC ,M$336 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$337 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M338339 CASE 2: 8X INTEREST RATE340 -POWER PLANT COST341 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MS342 AFUOC, M$343 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, MS344 LEVEL I ZED ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, MS345 FUEL REAL ESCALATION FACTOR346 LEVEL I ZED ANNUAL FUEL PRICE, MS347 TOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, MS348 LEVEL 1 ZED POWER COST, S/kWh349350 -THERMAL (MED) PLANT:351 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MS552 AFUOC, MS353 TOTAL WATER PLANT INVESTMENT, MS354 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR355 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR356 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR357 WATER CT, CAM CHARGE, MS/YR358 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M359360 -STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:361 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,MS362 AFUDC ,MS363 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,MS364 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR365 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR366 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR367 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR368 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.H369370 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:371 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$372 AFUOC ,M$373 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,MS374 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR375 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR376 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR377 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR378 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M379380 MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):381 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR382 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$383 AFUOC ,MS384 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,MS385 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
1,101,291,2593622.58371.313993.89
0.70
1056.00175.721231.72109.41
1.00122.78249.030.044
574.61121.91696.5161.8727.8411.8912.620.89
565.4669.20634.6656.380.0040.9039.230.87
531.6365.06596.6953.000.00
40.1339.230.85
1,101,291,2593622.58602.804225.37
0.84
688,307,0372268.85232.562501.40
0.71
770.00128.13898.1379.781.0076.73167.040.048
388.3664.62452.9840.2418.607.978.460.94
366.2944.82
411.1136.520.0027.4325.020.91
340.7741.70382.4733.970.0026.9225.020.88
688,307,0372268.85377.542646.38
0.86
550,645,6291828.74187.45
2016.180.73
220.0026.92246.9221.931.00
91.53127.500.045
252.6330.91283.5425.198.704.645.520.93
247.2230.25277.4724.650.0015.4615.340.96
228.6127.97256.5822.790.0015.1715.340.92
550,645,6291828.74304.302133.04
0.85
206,492,111692.2270.95763.170.75
99.0012.11
111.119.871.0034.3249.460.047
101.238.10
109.339.713.381.802.610.98
107.6813.18120.8510.740.006.006.321.07
97.3511.91109.269.710.005.896.321.01
206,492,111692.22115.19807.410.87
130,295,012453.2946.46499.75
0.86
44.003.5247.524.221.0033.9542.390.060
259.5231.76291.2825.870.005.544.870.94
211.6125.89237.5121.100.0017.6112.641.10
195.2023.89219.0819.460.0017.3012.641.06
130,295,012453.2975.43528.710.98
65,147,506260.0026.65286.640.81
55.003.2758.275.181.00
11.8618.620.047
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
261.5732.01293.5826.080.0017.9316.180.98
242.3029.65271.9524.160.0017.6116.180.95
65,147,506260.0043.26303.260.96
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
220.0026.92246.9221.931.0033.7261.19
N/A
614.5949.17663.7658.9661.1913.6712.131.21
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
44.001.73
45.734.061.0011.8617.03
N/A
154.309.17
163.4714.5217.032.733.271.56
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
oK) 386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440
CASE 3: 10X INTEREST RATE-POWER PLANT COST
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, M$AFUDC, HiTOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT. MSLEVELIZEO ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, MSFUEL REAL ESCALATION FACTORLEVELIZEO ANNUAL FUEL COST, M$TOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, MSLEVELIZED POWER COST, S/kWh
-THERMAL (MEO) PLANT:TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTAFUDC ,MSTOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, OiM CHARGE, MS/YRTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
-STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MSAFUOC, MSTOTAL INVESTMENT ,MSWATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, OSH CHARGE, MS/YRTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MSAFUOC, MSTOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, OfcM CHARGE, MS/YRTOTAL WATER COST, S/OI.MMAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):ANNUAL WATER PRCO, CU.M/YRTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$AFUDC ,H$TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
1056.00221.761277.76135.541.00
122.78275.160.049
574.61154.60729.2177.3530.7613.1412.621.04
565.4686.91652.3769.200.0045.1939.230.98
531.6381.71613.3465.060.0044.3439.230.95
1,101,291,2593622.58760.744383.32
0.95
770.00161.70931.7098.831.0076.73186.090.053
388.3681.56469.9249.8520.728.888.461.09
366.2956.30422.5944.830.0030.5625.021.03
340.7752.37393.1541.700.0029.9925.020.99
688,307,0372268.85476.462745.31
0.97
220.0033.81253.8126.921.00
91.53132.490.047
252.6338.83291.4530.929.044.825.521.06
247.2237.99285.2130.260.0016.0715.341.07
228.6135.13263.7427.980.0015.7715.341.02
550,645,6291828.74384.032212.77
0.94
99.0015.22114.2212.121.0034.3251.700.049
101.2310.12
111.3511.813.531.882.611.11
107.6816.55124.2313.180.006.276.321.19
97.3514.96112.3111.910.006.156.321.13
206,492,111692.22145.37837.590.96
44.004.4048.405.131.0033.9543.300.062
259.5239.89299.4131.760.005.664.871.10
211.6132.52244.1425.900.0017.9912.641.21
195.2030.00225.2023.890.0017.6712.64,1.16
130,295,012453.2995.19548.48
1.08
55.004.0859.086.271.0011.8619.710.050
N/AH/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
261.5740.20301.7832.010.0018.9816.181.10
242.3037.24279.5429.650.0018.6516.181.05
65,147,506260.0054.60314.591.08
220.0033.81253.8126.921.0033.7266.18
N/A
614.5961.46676.0571.7266.1816.4012.131.38
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
44.002.1546.154.901.0011.8617.86
N/A
154.3011.43165.7317.5817.863.283.271.74
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
S
442 SUMMARY443 = = = = = === = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = =:r = = =444 CASE445 PLANT TYPE446 PRODUCT447448 FUEL TYPE449 POWER CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY450 SELECTED NET OUTPUT. MWe (MWt)451 PRODUCT DRINKING WATER STANDARD452453 SUMMARY CASE 1: 5X INT & AFUDC RATE454 -LEVEL I ZED POWER COST $/kWh455 -PURCHASED POWER COST, $/kWh456 -THERMAL MED PLANT (OPTIMIZED)457 WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D458 NET SALEABLE POWER, MWe459 WATER COST, S/CU.M460 -STAND-ALONE RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)461 WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D462 NET SALEABLE POWER, MWe463 WATER COST, S/CU.M464 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)465 WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D466 NET SALEABLE POWER, MWe467 WATER COST, S/CU.M468 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MAXIMUM OUTPUT)469 WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D470 NET SALEABLE POWER, MWe471 WATER COST, S/CU.M472473 SUMMARY CASE 2: 8X INT & AFUDC RATE474 -LEVEL I ZED POWER COST »/kWh475 -PURCHASED POWER COST, S/kWh476 -THERMAL MED PLANT (OPTIMIZED)477 WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D478 NET SALEABLE POWER, MWe479 WATER COST, S/CU.M480 -STAND-ALONE RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)481 WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D482 NET SALEABLE POWER, MWe483 WATER COST, S/CU.M484 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)485 WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D486 NET SALEABLE POWER, MWe487 WATER COST, S/CU.H488 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MAXIMUM OUTPUT)489 WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D490 NET SALEABLE POWER, MWe491 WATER COST, S/CU.M492493 SUMMARY CASE 3: 10X INT & AFUDC RATE494 -LEVELIZED POWER COST, S/kWh495 -PURCHASED POWER COST, S/kWh
1-FFOSSIL
HEAT £ POWERPOWER ONLY
COALBOILER
800.00EEC
0.038N/A470,281663.620.69
470,281664.360.73
470281606.530.71
3,315,6440.000.70
0.044N/A470,281663.620.89
470,281684.360.87
470281686.530.85
3,315,6440.000.84
0.049N/A
==============
==============
2-FFOSSIL
HEAT t POWERPOWER ONLY
COALBOILER
500.00EEC
0.041N/A293,925415.000.73
293,925427.720.76
293925429.080.74
2,072,2780.000.71
0.048N/A293,925415.000.94
293,925427.720.91
293925429.080.88
2,072,2780.000.86
0.053N/A
==============
==============
3-FFOSSIL
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
OIL-GASCOMBINED CYCLE
400.00EEC
0.043N/A173,646355.270.75
173,646357.300.82
173646358.100.79
1,657,8220.000.73
0.045N/A173,646355.270.93
173,646357.300.96
173646358.100.92
1,657,8220.000.85
0.047N/A
4-FFOSSIL
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
OIL-GASCOMBINED CYCLE
150.00EEC
0.044N/A65,117133.230.81
65,117133.990.9065117134.290.86
621,6830.000.75
0.047N/A65,117133.230.98
65,117133.991.07
65117134.291.01
621, 6S30.000.87
0.049N/A
========= S ====
==============
5-FFOSSIL
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
OIL-GASGAS- TURBINE
100.00EEC
0.059N/A140,91786.030.74
140,91763.430.95
14091764.080.92
392,2780.000.86
0.060N/A140,91786.030.94
140,91763.431.10
14091764.081.06
392,2780.000.98
0.062N/A
==============
==============
6- FFOSSIL
POWER ONLYOIL
LOW-SPD DIESEL50.00
EEC
0.043N/AN/AN/AN/A184,049
2.230.83
1840493.080.81
196,1390.000.81
0.047N/AN/AN/AN/A184,049
2.230.98
1B40493.080.95
196,1390.000.96
0.050N/A
7-FFOSSIL
HEAT ONLYCOAL
BOILER500.00
EEC
N/A0.04
391,034N/A
0.99N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.05
391,034N/A
1.21N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/A0.06
8-FFOSSIL
HEAT ONLYOIL-GASBOILER
100.00EEC
N/A0.04
78,207N/A
1.32N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.05
78,207N/A
1.56N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/A0.06
496 -THERMAL MED PLANT (OPTIMIZED)497 UATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D498 NET SALEABLE POWER, MWe499 UATER COST, S/CU.M500 -STAND-ALONE RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)501 UATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D502 NET SALEABLE POWER, MWe503 UATER COST, S/CU.M504 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MED EU. OUTPUT)505 UATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D506 NET SALEABLE POUER, MWe507 UATER COST, S/CU.M508 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MAXIMUM OUTPUT)509 UATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D510 NET SALEABLE POWER, MWe511 UATER COST, S/CU.M513 INVESTMENT COSTS - 8X INTEREST RATE515 POWER PLANT516 SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION COST, S/kW517 - POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, M$518 • POWER PLANT IDC, MS519 TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, M$520 SPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/kW521522 POUER 1 THERMAL MED PLANT523 - POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS524 - POWER PLANT IDC, MS525 -PWR PLT COST PORTION OF UTR PROO MS526 - MED PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS527 - MED PLANT IDC, MS528 TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, MS529 - MED CAPACITY, CU.M/D530 SPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/CU.M/D531532 POUER & S-A RO (MED EQ.) PLANT533 - POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS534 - POWER PLANT IDC, MS535 -PWR PLT COST PORTION OF WTR PROO MS536 - RO PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS537 - RO PLANT IDC, MS538 TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, MS539 - RO (MED EÛ.) CAPACITY, CU.M/D540 SPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/CU.M/D541542 POWER & CONT. RO (MAX.) PLANT543 • POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS544 - POWER PLANT IDC, MS545 - RO PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS546 • RO PLANT IDC, MS547 TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, MS548 - RO (MAX.) CAPACITY, CU.M/D549 SPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/CU.M/D550
470,281663.62
1.04470,281684.360.98
470281686.530.95
3,315,6440.000.95
13201056176
12321540
1056176210575122906
4702811928
105617617856569813
4702811728
105617636236035457
33360001636
293,925415.00
1.09293,925427.72
1.03293925429.080.99
2,072,2780.000.97
15407701288981796
77012815338865606
2939252061
77012813036645
541293925
1840
770128
22693783545
20880001698
173,646355.271.06
173,646357.301.07
173646358.10
1.021.657,822
0.000.94
55022027247617
220272825331
3111736461792
220272624730304
1736461750
22027
18293042380
16800001417
65,117133.23
1.1165,117133.99
1.1965117134.29
1.13621,683
0.000.96
6609912
111741
991212
1018
122651171870
99121210813133
651172038
9912
692115919
6240001472
HO, 91786.031.10
140,91763.431.21
14091764.081.16
392,2780.001.08
==============
44044448475
4447
26032298
1409172114
44417
21226255
1409171809
444
45375576
4080001412
N/AN/AN/A184,049
2.231.10
1840493.081.05
196,1390.001.08
==£=======£===
110055358
1165
553
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
5535626232349
1840491898
553
26043362
2160001674
391,034N/A
1.38N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
44022027247494
2202724761549
9113910342329
22027247
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
22027
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
78,207N/A
1.74N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
44044246457
442461549
209782072675
44246
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
442
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
CCI ___ _ __ __ __ _________ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
552 CASE 2: 8X INTEREST RATE554 -POWER PLANT COST555 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, MS556 LEVEL I ZED ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, MS557 TOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, M$558 LEVEL I ZED POWER COST, S/kWh559560 -THERMAL (MED) PLANT:561 TOTAL WATER PLANT INVESTMENT, M$562 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.M563 WATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.M564 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, $/CU.M565 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M566567 -STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:568 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$569 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.M570 WATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.M571 WATER CT, OÄM CHARGE, S/CU.M572 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M573574 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:575 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$576 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.M577 WATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.M578 WATER CT, O&H CHARGE, S/CU.M579 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M580581 -MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):582 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,MS583 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.M584 WATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.M585 WATER CT, OÄM CHARGE, S/CU.M586 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M587
_ _ _ _ __
1231.72109.41249.030.044
696.510.480.310.100.89
634.660.360.260.250.87
596.690.340.260.250.85
4225.370.340.260.240.84
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
898.1379.78167.040.048
452.980.500.330.110.94
411.110.370.280.260.91
382.470.350.280.260.88
2646.380.340.280.240.86
= = = = = = = = = _• = = = =
====== = = _• = = ===
246.9221.93127.500.045
283.540.530.280.120.93
277.470.430.270.270.96
256.580.400.260.270.92
2133.040.340.260.240.85
============ ==
r ======= ======
111.119.8749.460.047
109.330.550.290.150.98
120.850.500.280.291.07
109.260.450.270.291.01
807.410.350.270.250.87
==============
47.524.2242.390.060
291.280.670.140.130.94
237.510.450.380.271.10
219.080.420.370.271.06
528.710.360.370.250.98
==============
58.275.18
18.620.047
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
293.580.430.290.260.98
271.950.400.290.260.95
303.260.410.290.260.96
============================
246.9221.9361.19
N/A
663.760.490.620.101.21
N/AN/A
"N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
==============
==============
45.734.06
17.03N/A
163.470.600.820.141.56
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
CASE 3. ENERGY SOURCE NUCLEARWATER PRODUCT QUAUTY WHO STANDARD
SPREADSHEET ORGANIZATION:PLANT CHARACTERISTICSPERFORMANCE INPUT DATACOST INPUT DATAECONOMIC PARAMETER INPUT DATAPERFORMANCE CALCULATIONSCOST CALCULATIONSECONOMIC EVALUATIONSSUMMARY
ROW # =====================================17 PLANT CHARACTERISTICS19 CASE20 PLANT TYPE2\ PRODUCT222324 i REACTOR TYPE25 i SIZE CATEGORY26 i SIZE RANGE MUe (MUt)27 i SELECTED NET OUTPUT, MUe (MUt)2829 i ASSUMED LOCATION30 i SERVICE DATE31 i AVG ANNUAL COOLING WATER TEMP, C32 i PUR PLT DESIGN COOLING UATER TEMP, C33 i RO DESIGN COOLING UATER TEMP, C34 i SEAWATER TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS, PPM35 i PRODUCT DRINKING UATER STANDARD37 PERFORMANCE INPUT DATA39 BASE POWER PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA:40 NET EFFICIENCY, X41 BOILER EFFICIENCY42 CONDENSER RANGE, C43 CONDENSER COOLING UTR PUMP HEAD, BAR44 CONDENSER COOLING UTR PUMP EFFICIENCY45 CONDENSER BACKPRESSURE, cm Kg46 CONDENSER END POINT ENTHALPY, U/kg47 CONDENSING TEMPERATURE, C48 PLANNED OUTAGE RATE49 UNPLANNED OUTAGE RATE5051 DUAL-PURPOSE PLT PERFORMANCE DATA:52 BACKPRESS STM WITH INTERMEDIATE LOOP53 i TURBINE BACKPRESSURE, cm Hg54 i CONDENSING TEMPERATURE, C55 i CONDENSER END POINT ENTHALPY, kJ/kg
START ROU «173797139156219281441
1-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
PWRLARGE
> 600 MWe900.00
NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00UHO
32.808.001.700.904.70
2329.0037.000.1000.110
30.0074.00
2424.00
END ROW #3595137154217279434587
2-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
PWRMEDIUM-LARGE> 600 MUe
600.00
NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00UHO
32.808.001.700.904.70
2329.0037.000.1000.110
30.0074.00
2424.00
3-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
PWRMEDIUM
100-600 MWe300.00
NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00UHO
32.808.001.700.904.70
2329.0037.000.1000.110
30.0074.00
2424.00
= = = = = = :: = :-- = == =4-N
NUCLEARHEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
PWRSMALL
< 100 MWe50.00
NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00WHO
28.008.001.700.901.70
2329.0037.000.1000.110
30.0074.00
2424.00
5-NNUCLEARHEAT ONLY
HEAT REACTORMEDIUM- L ARGE> 200 MUt
500.00NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00UNO
========3=====
==s== ===£=====
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.0500.050
N/AN/AN/A
6-NNUCLEARHEAT ONLY
HEAT REACTORMEDIUM-SMALL> 200 MUt
200.00NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00WHO
= = = = = = =. = = = =; = = =
==============
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.0500.050
N/AN/AN/A
7- NNUCLEARHEAT ONLY
HEAT REACTORSMALL-LARGE< 200 MUt
100.00NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00WHO
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.0500.050
N/AN/AN/A
8-NNUCLEARHEAT ONLY
HEAT REACTORSMALL -SMALL< 200 MUt
50.00NO. AFRICA CSTJAN 1, 2000
212718
38500.00UHO
==============
N/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.0500.050
N/AN/AN/A
NOTES=== = =
11
23
44
56 i57585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106 i107108 i109110
ENTHALPY IN CONDENSATE, kJ/kgINTERMEDIATE LOOP FLASH STH TEMP, CINTERMEDIATE LOOP COND. RTRM TEMP, CINTERMEDIATE LOOP PRESSURE LOSS, BARINTEMEDIATE LOOP PUMP EFFICIENCYMED WATER PLT PERFORMANCE DATA:DESALINATION TECHNOLOGYPRODUCT WATER TDS, PPMMAXIMUM BRINE TEMPERATURE, CGOR, kg PRODUCT/kg STEAMNUMBER OF EFFECTSUNIT SIZE, CU.M/DSEAWATER/PROOUCT FLOU RATIOSEAWATER HEAD + PRESS LOSS, BARSEAWATER PUMP EFFICIENCYWATER PLANT SPEC. PWR USE kWe/CU.M/DWTR PLT PLANNED OUTAGE RATEWTR PLT UNPLANNED OUTAGE RATEMEMBRANE WATER PLT PERFORMANCE DATA:NO. STAGES TO MEET WATER STANDARDOUTPUT PER UNIT, CU.MSEAUATER TDS, PPMRO PRODUCT WATER TDS, PPMRECOVERY RATIOSEAWATER PUMP HEAD, BARSEAWATER PUMP EFFICIENCYBOOSTER PUMP HEAD, BARBOOSTER PUMP EFFICIENCYSTAGE 1 HIGH HD PUMP PRESS RISE, BARSTAGE 1 HIGH HEAD PUMP EFFICIENCYSTG 1 HYDRAULIC COUPLING EFFICIENCYENERGY RECOVERY EFFICENCYSTG 2 HYDRAULIC COUPLING EFFICIENCYSTAGE 2 HIGH HD PUMP PRESS RISE, BARSTAGE 2 HIGH HEAD PUMP EFFICIENCYOTHER SPECIFIC POWER USE, kWe/CU.H/DRO PLANT AVAILABILITYCOST INPUT DATAPOWER PLANT COST DATA:SPEC. CONSTR. COST, $/kWe ($/kWt)ADDIT10NL CONSTR. COST, $/kWe (S/kWt)TOTAL CONSTR. COST, S/kWe ($/kWt)CONSTRUCTION LEAD TIME, MONTHSSPECIFIC O&M COST, $/MWheSPECIFIC FUEL COST, $/MWhe ($/MWht)LEVEL I ZED ANNUAL DECOMM. COST, MS
FUEL ANNUAL REAL ESCALATION, X
309.9071.5068.501.000.90
LT-MED25.0065.0011.50
1448,000
9.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
124,00038,500200.000 501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.9650.000.90
0.04080.91
==============
1500.00150.001650.0072.009.006.006.320.00
309.9071.5068.501.000.90
LT-MED25.0065.0011.50
1448,0009.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
124,00038,500200.000.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.9650.000.90
0.04080.91
1700.00170.001870.0060.0012.007.004.210.00
309.9071.5068.501.000.90
LT-MED25.0065.0011.50
1448,000
9.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
124,00038,500200.00
0.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.9650.000.90
0.04080.91
2200.00220.002420.0060.0012.008.002.110.00
309.9071.5068.501.000.90
LT-MED25.0065.0011.50
1448,000
9.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
124,00038,500200.00
0.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.9650.000.90
0.04080.91
==============
==============
2500.00250.002750.0048.0015.0010.000.350.00
N/A138.00123.00
1.000.90
LT-MED25.00120.0021.00
2748,000
5.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
550.0055.00605.0048.004.002.701.300.00
N/A138.00123.00
1.000.90
LT-MED25.00120.0021.00
2748,000
5.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
==============
750.0075.00825.0048.004.503.300.520.00
N/A138.00123.00
1.000.90
LT-MEO25.00120.0021.00
2748,000
5.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
============================
1000.00100.001100.0036.005.003.300.260.00
N/A138.00123.00
1.000.90
LT-MED25.00120.0021.00
2724,000
5.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
= = = = = = == = = = = = =
1500.00150.001650.0036.006.003.300.130.00
7a8910
11
12813
1415
161617
221202
6l81
£06 '0V/NV/N
OS'0V/N
OO'OS
==============
90'0L9'OLOO'Ol
SO'088'8OO'S
*0'0IS'9OO'S
==============
==============
V/N
V/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/N
SO'0V/NV/N
OS'0OZO'O0*0 '000'000/Z00 '00009DO'81SO'0Ol 'OOO'OOl00-089100' l
£06 '0V/NV/N
00' LV/N
OO'OOL
==============
90-0I9'0lOO'OL
SO'089'8DO'8
WOIS'9OO'S
V/N
V/NV/NV/NV/NV/ftV/NV/N
SO'0V/NV/N
OS'0020'00*0*000 -000/200-00009oo -*zSO'0oroOO'OOl00-089106'0
£06 '0V/NV/N
OO'ZV/N
OO'OOZ
90-019'QlOO'Ol
SO'088'800'8
WOIS'9OO'S
==============
V/N
V/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/N
SO'0V/ NV/N
OS'0OZO'OOVO'O00 -000/2DO'00009oo -*zSO'0oroOO'OOl00'089l06'0
£06'0V/NV/N
OO'SV/N
00 'DOS
90'019'OLOO'OL
SO'088'8DO'8
WOIS'9OO'S
==============
V/N
V/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/N
SO'0V/NV/N
OS'0ozo-o0*0'000 '000/200-0000900 '9£SO'0Ol 'OOO'OOL00-089106'0
IOS'0WO££'6£8££9'Z£9'ZS/S'8/l
==============
V/NL9'0lOO'Ol
V/N88'800-8
V/N 'IS'9oo- s
==============
00-8»
OS'0/O'O£0'080-000'000/Z00-00009OO'SlSO'0Ol 'OOO'SZU
OS'0020 'O0*0 'O00-000/200 '0000900 '*ZSO'0Ol'OOO'OOLOO'OOL06'0
108'099'£9S'£S£8l6/-SI6/ 'SL££9'*16
V/NI9'0lOO'Ol
V/NW800'8
V/NIS'9OO'S
==============
00-8»
OS'0/O'O£0'0eo'o00 -000/200 '0000900 '*ZSO'0Ö L ' 00 0 - S Z L L
OS'0OZO'O0*0 'O00'000/ZDO'0000900 "9£SO'0Ol 'OOO'OOL00'0**l06'0
LOS'0Z£'/Z/'/0/9£8 S ' L £8S' l£9/2'628L
V/NI9'0lOO'Ol
V/N88'8OO'S
V/NLS'9OO'S
00 '8V
OS'0/O 'O£0'080'000 '000/200 '0000900 '0£SO'0O L ' OOO 'SZ l l
OS'0020 '00*0 '000' 000/2DO'0000900 '8VSO'0O L ' OO O ' O O Loo'om06'0
LOS'086'0l6S'L90SS/£'/*/£'/*606'£*/Z
V/NL9 'OLO O ' O L
V/N88'8DO'8
V/NIS'9OO'S
OO'S*
OS'0/O'O£0'080'0DO'000/2DO'0000900'9£SO'0Ol 'O00-S2LL
OS'0020 '00*0 '000 '000/2DO'00009DO'09SO'0oroOO'OOL00 '0** l06'0
A1I1I8V1IVAV ONUVaSdOanH 'asnod dwnd am ONiicxx) »SSNSONOS
S/6^ 'röld am 3NM003 a3SN30N03»«H 'savoi xnv iNvid
»«H 'indino ssoao iNvidJKH 'aanod ivnasm
:33NVHaOdM3d lld 3SOdafld-310NIS
SN011Vin31V3 33NVHaOda3d==========================3==========
Mrtl/S '1S03 A113iai3313 03SVH3afWX '31Va 39aVH3 Q3XId S16-N1
ÜA/X 'aiva 3andv31Va 1S3M31N1 XOL :£ 3SV3
>W/$ '1S03 A1I3I813313 03SVH3andX '31Va 30aVH3 <]3XId SL6-N1
aA/x '3iva 3ondv3 i V» 1S3M31N1 X8 =Z 3SV3
MrtVS '1S03 A113iai3313 03SVH3andX '31V« 308VH3 03XId SL6-N1
aA/x '3iva 3ondv31Va 1S3Ü31NI XS U 3SV3
vivo indNi sa3i3Hvavd DIHONODSSH1NOH'3HI1 QV31 lld a31Vrt
undino OH HOHIXVHdV3 3SV8 X'1S03 SNI HSO lld aSiVrt
H-03/S '1S03 1V3IH3H3 31dI33dSHTD/$ 'iso3 siavd aavds HSO
HTI3/S '1S03 !N3H33Vld3a 3NVÏ8H3H HSOaA/$ 'Aavivs aoavi sovasAv
ÜA/$ 'AaVIVS 1N3H39VNVH 39V83AVSH1NOH'3H!1 QV31 lld «HlVtt
D013Vd 1S03 SÜ3Nno lld Ü31VMa013VJ A3/91N03 1S03 lld »31VA
a/H'no/$ 'iso3 UNO 3sva:V1VQ 1S03 INVld M31VN 3NV88H3H
dV3 3SV8 X'1S03 SNI HSO lld «31VrtH'n3/$ '1S03 H3H3 WSO 3IdI33dS
H'no/s 'iso3 siavd savds HSO oidioadsaA/$ 'AÏVIVS aoavi sovasAV
«A/J 'AaVIVS 1N3H39VNVH 39Va3AVSHINOH'BHIl OV31 lld «31Yfl
aoi3Vd iso3 sa3Nno iid a3ivn«013Vd A3.01N03 1S03 lld «iVfl
Q/H'n3/$ '1S03 UNO dOOl 31VIQ3H)i31NI0/H'f13/$ '1S03 UNO 3SV8
3zis UNO aod aoi3Vd N0ii33aao3:VIVQ iso3 iNvid aaivn IVHMSHI
591*9l£91Z91191091651SSL95155L£5125LLSLOSL8VL/*l9*1S*l£*l2*1
6£L8£L/£l9£LS£l*£L
! ££l2£lL£L0£L
! 621! 821! /ZI! 921SZl*2L£21
! 221L2L
! 021! 611! 811! /Ut 9LL.' SUl £11> 2LL
IIIooO
166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
DUAL-PURPOSE POWER PLANT PERFORMANCE:BACKPRESSURE TURB. EXHAUST FLOW, kg/sLOST ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION, HWeNET ELECTRICITY PRODUCED, MWeTOTAL HEAT TO WTR PLT, MWtALTERNATE REJECT HEAT CHECK, MWtINTERMEDIATE LOOP FLOW RATE, kg/sINTERMEDIATE LOOP PUHPING POWER, MWeFLASH STEAM FLOW TO MED, kg/sTHERMAL WATER PLANT PERFORMANCE:MAXIMUM WATER PLT CAPACITY, CU.M/DAYNUMBER OF UNITSSEAWATER FLOW, kg/sINCREMENTAL SEAWATER PUMPING PWR, MWeWATER PLANT INTERNAL POWER USE, MWeWTR PLT+ I NT.LOOP+SEAWTR PUMP PWR, MUeWTR PLT OPERATING AVAILABILTIYCOMBINED PWR/WTR PLT CAPACITY FACTORANNUAL WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/YRAVRG DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/DRO WATER PLANT PERFORMANCE:PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DAYNUMBER OF RO UNITSSEAWATER FLOW, kg/sSTAND-ALONE SEAWATER PUMPING PWR, MWeCONTIGUOUS SEAWATER PUMPING PWR, MWeBOOSTER PUMP POWER, HWeSTAGE 1 HIGH HEAD PUMP POWER, MWeENERGY RECOVERY, MWeSTAGE 2 HIGH HEAD PUMP POWER, MWeOTHER POWER, MWeTOTAL STAND-ALONE POWER USE, MWeTOTAL CONTIGUOUS POWER USE, MWeANNUAL AVG. WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/YRAVG. DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/DAYSPEC. (S-A) PWR CONSUMPTION, kWh/CU.MSPEC (CONT) PWR CONSUMPTION, kWh/CU.MNET PWR PLNT SALEABLE PWR (S-A), MWeNET PWR PLNT SALEABLE PWR (CONT), MWeMAXIMUM RO PLANT OUTPUT:PRODUCT CAPACITY, CU.M/DAYNUMBER OF RO UNITSSEAWATER FLOW, kg/sTOTAL POWER USE, MWeANNUAL AVG. WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/YRAVG. DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/DAYNET POWER PLANT SALEABLE POWER, MWeCOST CALCULATIONS
877.6075.31824.691857.021858.60
148087.7617.37800.44
795,31717.0082,846
5.5466.0188.920.9070.750
217,616,444596,209
795,31734.00
18410.123.670.007.13
194.3268.860.0032.45168.71165.04
264,164,562723,739
5.094.98
731.29734.96
4,337,106182.00100,396900.00
1,440,569,8813,946,767
-0.00
==============
585.0750.21549.791238.011239.0698725.17
11.58533.63
530,21112.0055,230
3.6944.0159.280.9070.750
145,077,629397,473
530,21123.00
12273.412.450.004.75
129.5445.900.00
21.63112.47110.03
176,109,708482,492
5.094.98
487.53489.97
2,891,404121.0066,931600.00
960,379,9212,631,178
0.00
==============
292.5325.10274.90619.01619.53
49362.595.79
266.81
265,1066.00
27,6151.8522.0029.640.9070.750
72,538,815198,736
265,10612.00
6136.711.220.002.3864.7722.950.00
10.8256.2455.01
88,054,854241,246
5.094.98
243.76244.99
1,445,70261.0033,465300.00
480,189,9601,315,589
0.00
65.274.90
45.10138.10130.12
11012.981.2959.53
59,1462.00
6,1610.464.916.660.9070.750
16,183,68944,339
59,1463.00
1369.120.270.000.53
14.455.120.002.41
12.5512.27
19,645,37853,823
5.094.9837.4537.73
240,95011.005,57850.00
80,031,660219,265
0.00
N/AN/AN/A500.00
N/A7974.48
0.94215.52
391,0349.00
22,6294.5132.4636.970.9070.844
120,462,083330,033
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A200.00
N/A3189.79
0.3786.21
156,4144.009,0521.81
12.9814.790.9070.844
48,184,833132,013
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A100.00
N/A1594.90
0.1943.10
78,2072.004,5260.906.497.390.9070.844
24,092,41766,007
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
50.00N/A797.45
0.0921.55
39,1032.002,2630.453.253.700.9070.844
12,046,20833,003
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
2324
2526
27
28
2930
221 THERMAL WATER PLANT COSTS:222 NUMBER OF UNITS223 COMPARATIVE NUMBER224 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION225 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION226 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR NO. OF UNITS227 WATER PLT SPECIFIC BASE COST,$/CU.M/D228 INC. IN/OUTFALL SPEC. BS CT, S/CU.M/D229 INTERMEDIATE LOOP COST, S/CU.M/D230 TOTAL SPECIFIC BASE COST, $/CU.M/0231 NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL232 WATER PLT O&M MGMT COST.MS/Y233 NUMBER OF LABOR PERSONNEL234 WATER PLT O&M LABOR COST,M$/Y235 WATER PLT ADJUSTED BASE COST.MS236 WATER PLT OWNERS COST.MS237 WATER PLT CONTINGENCY ,M$238 WATER PLT TOT CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$239 WATER PLT O&M COST.HS/YR240241 RO WATER PLANT COSTS:242 NUMOER OF UNITS243 COMPARATIVE NUMBER244 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION245 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION246 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR NO. OF UNITS247 PROCESS PLT SPECIFIC COST,$/CU.M/D248 STND-ALN IN/OUTFALL SPEC.CT, S/CU.M/D249 STND-ALN WTR PLNT SPEC. CT, S/CU.M/D250 NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL251 O&H HGHT COST.MS/Y252 NUMBER OF LABOR PERSONNEL253 O&M LABOR COST,M$/Y254 STND-ALN WTR PLT ADJUSTED BASE CT,MS255 CONTIGUOUS WTR PLT ADJUSTED BS CT,M$256 WATER PLT OWNERS COST.MS257 WATER PLT CONTINGENCY .MS258 STNO-ALN WTR PLT TOT CONSTRUCT CT, MS259 CONTIGUOUS WTR PLT TOT CONSTR CT, MS260 WATER PLT O&M COST.MS/YR261262 MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):263 NUMBER OF UNITS264 COMPARATIVE NUMBER265 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION266 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION267 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR NO. OF UNITS268 PROCESS PLT SPECIFIC COST, S/CU.M/D269 INCRMTL IN/OUTFALL SPEC. CT, S/CU.M/D270 WATER PLANT SPEC. BASE COST, S/CU.M/0271 NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL272 NUMBER OF LABOR PERSONNEL273 WATER PLT O&M MGMT COST,M$/Y274 WATER PLT O&M LABOR COST.MS/Y275 WATER PLT ADJUSTED BASE COST.MS
17.0014.003.0000.6720.725939.6027.06100.001066.66
191.1475
2.01848.3342.4289.07979.8220.45
34.0014.0020.0000.4360.725815.6350.48866.11
191.1475
2.01688.83648.6834.4472.33795.60749.2354.15
182.0014.00
168.0000.0100.725815.637.75
823.3882147
4.923.97
3571.07
12.0014.00-2.0000.7630.763988.4631.82100.001120.28
140.8463
1.71593.9829.7062.37686.0514.23
23.0014.009.0000.5770.725815.6359.37874.99
140.8463
1.71463.93432.4523.2048.71535.84499.4836.57
121.0014.00
107.0000.0480.725815.639.12
824 . 7456125
3.363.38
2384.66
6.0014.00-8.0000.8880.888
1151.3241.99100.001293.31
90.5448
1.30342.8617.1436.00396.017.90
12.0014.00-2.0000.7630.763858.0378.34936.37
90.5448
1.30248.24227.4712.4126.06286.71262.7318.93
61.0014.0047.0000.2190.725815.6312.03827.65
3095
1.802.56
1196.54
2.0014.00
-12.0000.9830.983
1274.5586.96100.001461.51
60.3626
0.7186.444.329.0899.842.48
3.0014.00
-11.0000.9590.959
1078.61H2.751221.36
60.3626
0.7172.2463.803.617.5983.4473.684.97
11.0014.00-3.0000.7820.782880.1316.34896.46
946
0.541.25
216.00
9.0014.00-5.0000.8230.823
1244.58116.20100.001460.79
120.7256
1.52571.2228.5659.98659.7612.32
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
4.0014.00
-10.0000.9350.935
1413.27167.65100.001680.91
70.4239
1.05262.9213.1527.61303.675.68
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
2.0014.00
-12.0000.9830.983
1486.98221.21100.001808.19
60.3630
0.80141.417.0714.85163.333.31
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
2.0014.00
-12.0000.9830.983
1652.19291.89100.002044.09
50.3022
0.6079.934.008.3992.322.03
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
276 WATER PIT OWNERS COST, MS277 WATER PIT CONTINGENCY ,H$278 WATER PIT TOT CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$279 WATER PLT OiM COST,M$/YR280 =====================================281 ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS282 =====================================283 CASE 1: 5X INTEREST RATE284 -POWER PLANT COST285 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, M$286 AFUDC, M$287 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, H$288 LEVELI2ED ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, H$289 FUEL REAL ESCALATION FACTOR290291 ANNUAL FUEL COST, M$292 ANNUAL O&H COST, MS293 ELEC. PWR COST (HEAT ONLY), MS/YR294 TOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, MS295 LEVELIZED POWER COST, S/kWh296297 -THERMAL (MED) PLANT:298 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR299 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MÏ300 AFUDC ,M$301 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$302 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR303 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR304 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR305 WATER CT, O&H CHARGE, MS/YR306 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M307308 -STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:309 MED EQUIVALANT OUTPUT:310 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR311 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,H$312 AFUDC ,M$313 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,MS314 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, Mt/YR315 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR316 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR317 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR318 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M319320 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:321 MED EQUIVALANT OUTPUT:322 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR323 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,MS324 AFUDC ,MS325 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$326 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR327 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, HS/YR328 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR329 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR330 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
178.55374.964124.58286.05==============
1485.00234.071719.07111.83
1.0037.8956.84
N/A212.870.034
217,616,444979.82127.111106.93
72.0116.6719.6420.450.59
264,164,562795.6060.41856.0155.680.0045.3354.150.59
264,164,562749.2356.89
806.1152.440.0044.3554.150.57
119.23250.392754.28191.53==============
1122.00145.551267.5582.461.0029.4750.52
N/A166.660.040
145,077,629686.0570.32756.3749.2013.0515.3714.230.63
176,109,708535.8433.70569.5437.050.0035.4936.570.62
176,109,708499.4831.41530.8934.540.0034.7236.570.60
59.83125.641382.0096.78==============
726.0094.18820.1853.351.00
16.8425.26
N/A97.560.046
72,538,815396.0130.07426.0827.727.649.007.900.72
88,054,854286.7114.34301.0519.580.0020.7818.930.67
88,054,854262.7313.14275.8617.950.0020.3218.930.65
10.8022.68249.4817.28==============
137.5014.09
151.599.861.003.515.26
N/A18.980.054
16,183,68999.844.99
104.836.821.742.362.480.83
19,645,37883.443.1186.555.630.005.414.970.82
19,645,37873.682.7576.434.970.005.294.970.78
N/AN/AN/AN/A
==============
302.5031.01333.5121.701.00
10.6715.811.58
51.07N/A
120,462,083659.7650.10709.8546.1851.0710.9212.321.00
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A.N/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/A
==============
==============
165.0016.91181.9111.831.005.227.120.6325.32
N/A
48,184,833303.6715.18318.8520.7425.324.375.681.16
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/A
==============
110.008.35
118.357.701.002.613.950.32
14.84N/A
24,092,417163.33
8.17171.5011.1614.842.183.311.31
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/A
==============
82.506.2688.765.771.001.302.370.169.74
N/A
12,046,20892.323.4495.766.239.741.092.031.58
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
331332 -MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):333 ANNUAL WATER PROO, CU.M/YR334 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$335 AFUOC ,M$336 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$337 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M338339 CASE 2: 8X INTEREST RATE340 -POWER PLANT COST341 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, M$342 AFUOC, MS343 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, M$344 LEVEL 1 ZED ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, M$345 FUEL REAL ESCALATION FACTOR346347 TOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, MS348 LEVEL I ZED POWER COST, S/kWh349350 -THERMAL (MED) PLANT:351 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, M$352 AFUOC, MS353 TOTAL WATER PLANT INVESTMENT, H$354 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR355 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR356 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR357 WATER CT, OiM CHARGE, MS/YR358 TOTAL WATER COST, $/CU.M359360 -STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:361 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$362 AFUDC ,MS363 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$364 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR365 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR366 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR367 WATER CT, 04M CHARGE, MS/YR368 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M369370 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:371 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$372 AFUDC ,MS373 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$374 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR375 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR376 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR377 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR378 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M379380 -MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):381 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR382 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$383 AFUDC ,M$384 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,MS385 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
1,440,569,8814124.58422.774547.35
0.57
1485.00385.671870.67166.17
1.00267.210.042
979.82207.881187.70105.5020.9324.6520.450.79
795.6097.36892.9579.320.0056.9154.150.72
749.2391.68840.9174.700.0055.6754.150.70
1,440,569,8814124.58686.334810.91
0.71
960,379,9212754.28282.313036.59
0.60
1122.00238.041360.04120.81
1.00205.010.049
686.05114.16800.2171.0816.0518.9114.230.83
535.8454.11589.9552.400.0043.6636.570.75
499.4850.44549.9248.850.00
42.7136.570.73
960,379,9212754.28458.313212.59
0.74
480,189,9601382.00141.661523.66
0.64
726.00154.03880.0378.171.00
122.380.058
396.0148.46444.4739.489.5811.297.900.94
286.7122.94309.6527.510.0026.0618.930.82
262.7321.02283.7525.200.0025.4918.930.79
480,189,9601382.00229.971611.97
0.79
80,031,660249.4825.57275.060.71
137.5022.88160.3814.251.0023.370.067
99.847.99
107.839.582.142.912.481.06
83.444.9688.397.850.006.664.970.99
73.684.3878.066.930.006.524.970.94
80,031,660249.4841.51291.000.87
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
302.5050.34352.8431.341.00
60.71N/A
659.7680.73740.4965.7860.7113.6412.321.27
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
165.0027.46192.4617.101.0030.58
N/A
303.6724.29327.9629.1330.585.465.681.47
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
110.0013.46123.4610.971.00
18.11N/A
163.3313.07176.4015.6718.112.733.311.65
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
82.5010.1092.608.231.00
12.19N/A
92.325.4997.818.6912.191.362.032.01
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
386387 CASE 3: 10X INTEREST RATE388 -POWER PLANT COST389 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, M$390 AFUOC, MS391 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, M$392 LEVEL1ZED ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, MS393 FUEL REAL ESCALATION FACTOR394395 TOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, Mt396 LEVEL I ZED POWER COST, S/kWh397398 -THERMAL (MED) PLANT:399 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST400 AFUDC ,M$401 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$402 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR403 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR404 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR405 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR406 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M407408 -STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:409 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MS410 AFUDC, M$411 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$412 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR413 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR414 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR415 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR416 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M417418 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:419 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MS420 AFUDC, MS421 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$422 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR423 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR424 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR425 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR426 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M427428 -MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):429 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR430 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,MS431 AFUOC ,MS432 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$433 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M434 r = = = = = = r = =: = = = = r = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = r = =435436437438439440
1485.00491.541976.54209.67
1.00310.710.049
979.82263.631243.45131.9024.3328.6620.450.94
795.60122.28917.8797.370.0066.1754.150.82
749.23115.15864.3791.690.0064.7354.150.80
1,440,569,8814124.58866.164990.75
0.81
1122.00301.881423.88151.041.00
235.250.056
686.05144.07830.1288.0618.4221.7014.230.98
535.8467.80603.6464.030.0050.1036.570.86
499.4863.20562.6859.690.0049.0136.570.82
960,379,9212754.28578.403332.68
0.85
726.00195.54921.3497.731.00
141.940.067
396.0160.86456.8748.4611.1213.097.901.11
286.7128.67315.3933.460.0030.2318.930.94
262.7326.27289.0030.660.0029.5718.930.90
480,189,9601382.00290.221672.22
0.91
137.5028.88166.3817.651.0026.770.076
99.849.98
109.8311.652.463.332.481.23
83.446.1889.629.510.007.634.971.13
73.685.4679.148.400.007.474.971.06
80,031,660249.4852.39301.88
1.00
302.5063.53366.0338.831.0068.20
N/A
659.76101.40761.1580.7468.2016.3712.321.47
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
165.0034.65199.6521.181.0034.67
N/A
303.6730.37334.0435.4334.676.555.681.71
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
110.0016.91126.9113.461.0020.60
N/A
163.3316.33179.6619.0620.603.273.311.92
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
82.5012.6895.1810.101.00
14.06N/A
92.326.8499.1610.5214.061.642.032.34
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495
SUMMARY
CASEPLANT TYPEPRODUCT
SELECTED NET OUTPUT, MWe (MUt)PRODUCT DRINKING WATER STANDARDSUMMARY CASE 1: 5X INT & AFUDC RATE-LEVEL I ZED POWER COST, S/kWh-PURCHASED POWER COST, S/kWh-THERMAL MED PLANT (OPTIMIZED)
WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, $/CU.M
•STAND-ALONE RO PLT (MED Ed. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MAXIMUM OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
SUMMARY CASE 2: OX INT & AFUDC RATE-LEVELIZED POWER COST, S/kWh-PURCHASED POWER COST, $/kWh-THERMAL MED PLANT (OPTIMIZED)
WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-STAND-ALONE RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MAXIMUM OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/0NET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
SUMMARY CASE 3: 10X INT & AFUOC RATE-LEVELIZED POWER COST, $/kWh-PURCHASED POWER COST, S/kWh
1-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
900.00WHO
0.034N/A
795317.06735.99
0.59795317.06
731.290.59
795317.06734.96
0.574337106.37
-0.000.57
0.042N/A
795317.06735.99
0.79795317.06
731.290.72
795317.06734.96
0.704337106.37
-0.000.71
0.049N/A
2-NNUCLEAR
HEAT t POWERPOWER ONLY
600.00WHO
0.040N/A
530211.37490.66
0.63530211.37
487.530.62
530211.37489.97
0.602891404.25
0.000.60
0.049N/A
530211.37490.66
0.83530211.37
487.530.75
530211.37489.97
0.732891404.25
0.000.74
0.056N/A
3-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
300.00WHO
0.046N/A
265105.69245.33
0.72265105.69
243.760.67
265105.69244.99
0.651445702.12
0.000.64
0,058N/A
265105.69245.33
0.94265105.69
243.760.82
265105.69244.99
0.791445702.12
0.000.79
0.067N/A
4-NNUCLEAR
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
50.00WHO
0.054N/A59146.10
38.450.83
59146.1037.450.82
59146.1037.730.78
240950.350.000.71
0.067N/A59146.10
38.451.06
59146.1037.450.99
59146.1037.730.94
240950.350.000.87
0.076N/A
5-NNUCLEARHEAT ONLY
500.00WHO
N/A0.04
391034.48N/A
1.00N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.05
391034.48N/A
1.27N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/A0.06
6-NNUCLEARHEAT ONLY
200.00WHO
N/A0.04
156413.79N/A
1.16N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.05
156413.79N/A
1.47N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.06
7-NNUCLEARHEAT ONLY
100.00WHO
N/A0.04
78206.90N/A
1.31N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AH/AN/A
N/A0.05
78206.90N/A
1.65N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/A0.06
8-NNUCLEARHEAT ONLY
50.00WHO
N/A0.04
39103.45N/A
1.58N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AH/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.05
39103.45N/A
2.01N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.06
496 -THERMAL MED PLANT (OPTIMIZED)497 WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D498 NET SALEABLE POWER, HWe499 WATER COST, S/CU.M500 -STAND ALONE RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)501 WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D502 NET SALEABLE POWER, HWe503 WATER COST, S/CU.M504 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)505 WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D506 NET SALEABLE POWER, MWe507 WATER COST, Î/CU.M508 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MAXIMUM OUTPUT)509 WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/D510 NET SALEABLE POWER, MUe511 WATER COST, S/CU.M512 =======s=r r ==========================513 INVESTMENT COSTS - 8X INTEREST RATE5H =====================================515 POWER PLANT516 SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION COST, S/kW517 • DOWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, M$518 - POWER PLANT IDC, MS519 TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, M$520 SPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, $/kW521522 POWER & THERMAL MED PLANT523 - POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS524 - POWER PLANT IDC, M$525 -PWR PLT COST PORTION OF WTR PROD H$526 - MED PLANT CONSTRUCTION, M$527 - MED PLANT IDC, MS528 TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, MS529 - MED CAPACITY, CU.M/D530 SPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/CU.M/D531532 POWER & S-A RO (MED EQUIV.) PLANT533 - POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS534 • POWER PLANT IDC, MS535 -PWR PLT COST PORTION OF WTR PROD MS536 - RO PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS537 - RO PLANT IDC, M$538 TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, MS539 • RO (MED EOU1V.) CAPACITY, CU.M/D540 SPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/CU.M/D541542 POWER & CONT. RO (MAX.) PLANT543 - POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS544 • POWER PLANT IDC, MS545 • RO PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS546 - RO PLANT IDC, MS547 TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, MS548 • RO (MAX.) CAPACITY, CU.M/D549 SPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/CU.M/D550
795317.06735.770.94
795317.06731.290.82
795317.06734.960.80
4337106.37•0.000.81
1650148538618712079
14853863419802081529
7953171923
148538635179697
12447953171564
148538641256866682
43680001530
530211.37490.510.98
530211.37487.530.86
530211.37489.970.82
2891404.250.000.85
1870112223813602267
11222382486861141048
5302111977
112223825553654845
5302111594
112223827544584573
29040001575
265105.69245.26
1.11265105.69
243.760.94
265105.69244.990.90
1445702.120.000.91
24207261548802933
72615416139648605
2651062282
72615416528723475
2651061790
72615413822302492
14640001702
59146.1038.431.23
59146.1037.451.13
59146.1037.731.06
240950.350.001.00
==============
2750138231603208
13823371008
145591462450
1382340835
129591462175
1382324942451
2640001710
391034.48N/A
1.47N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
60530350353706
3035035366081
10933910342796
156413.79N/A
1.71N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
82516527192962
1652719230424520
1564143327
78206.90N/A
1.92N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
==============
110011013123
1235
1101312316313300
782073834
39103.45N/A
2.34N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
1650831093
1852
831093925
190391034869
551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567560569570571572573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587
COST SUMMARY: 8X INTEREST RATE-POWER PLAMT COST
TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, M$LEVELIZED ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, MSTOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, M$LEVELIZED POWER COST, S/kWh
-THERMAL (MED) PLANT:TOTAL WATER PLANT INVESTMENT, M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.MWATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.MWATER CT, 04M CHARGE, S/CU.MTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
-STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.MWATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.MWATER CT, O&M CHARGE, S/CU.MTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.MWATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.MWATER CT, 04M CHARGE, S/CU.MTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
-MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.MWATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.MWATER CT, OÄM CHARGE, S/CU.MTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
1870.67166.17267.210.042
1187.700.480.210.090.79
892.950.300.220.200.72
840.910.280.210.200.70
4810.910.300.210.200.71
1360.04120.81205.010.049
800.210.490.240.100.83
589.950.300.250.210.75
549.920.280.240.210.73
3212.590.300.240.200.74
880.0378.17122.380.058
444.470.540.290.110.94
309.650.310.300.210.82
283.750.290.290.210.79
1611.970.300.290.200.79
160.3814.2523.370.067
107.830.590.310.151.06
88.390.400.340.250.99
78.060.350.330.250.94
291.000.320.330.220.87
352.8431.3460.71
N/A
740.490.550.620.101.27
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
192.4617.1030.58
N/A
327.960.600.750.121.47
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
==============
123.4610.9718.11
N/A
176.400.650.860.141.65
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
92.608.2312.19
N/A
97.810.721.130.172.01
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
1"J
£Z
= = = = =
ll
S310N
V/NV/NV/N
OSO'0OSO'0
V/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/N
==============
==============OHn00'OOS8£8lLZIZoooz 'i Nvr
ISO VOISdV 'ONOO'OOlinw ooi >nVHS-HniQ3H
831108SV3-1IOA1NO 1V3H
1ISSOJd-8
V/NV/ NV/N
OSO'0OSO'0
V/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/N
OHn00'OOS8£8lLZIZoooz 'i Nvr
ISO VOISdV 'ON
00 'DOSinH oos-ooiHTII03H»311091VOO
A1NO 1V3H
USSOdd-/
V/NV/NV/N
OSO'0OSO'0
V/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/N
6/88 '0OO'OS
OHn00'OOS8£8lZZIZoooz 'i NVPiso voisdv 'ONOO'OS3MH 001 >
11VHS13S31Q CldS-nOl
110A1NO S3nOdUSSOdd-9
V/NV/NV/N
OU'OooroV/NV/NV/NV/NV/NV/N
6/88'0O0'l£
==============OHn00'OOS8£8lLZIZoooz 'l NVPiso voiadv 'ONOO'OOlsnH ooi >nvHS3N18SOI-SV9
SV3-110A1NO SSnOdS3nOd V 1V3HUSSOdd-S
00'109Z00 'IL00 '0£
OU'Oooro00'/£00"9/£ZÖL'1!06'0O/' l00'86/88 °000"9
=========±=2==OHn00'OOS8£8lLZIZOOOZ 'l NVP
1SD VOISdV 'ONOO'OSl»nu oos-ooillVHS-Hni03H310AO a3NI8HOO
SVO-1IOA1NO H3«0d
S3rtOd ? 1V3HUSSOd
==============
00'109Z00 'W00'0£
oiroooro00'/£00'9/£ZOL'106'0O/' l00'86/89 '000 '95
OHn00'OOS8£8lLZIZoooz 'l NVP
ISO VOISdV 'ON00 '00 V»nw oos-ooi
HDI03H310A3 03NI8H03
SVO-1IOAINU asnodS3rtOd S 1V3HUSSOdd-£
OOH09Z00 'U00 '0£
OU'Oooro00'/£00"9/£ZÖL'1!06'0O/' l00'86/88 '000 "6£
OHn00'OOS8£8lLZIZOOOZ 'l NVP
ISO V3ISdV 'ON00 'DOS
SttH OOS <33HVl-Hni03H
S3! 1081V03AiNO ssnod
S3nOd S 1V3HUSSOdd-Z
/8S•;£*;6/ZHZVSl/£l56S£
00'109Z00' IL00 '0£
OU'Oooro00'9/£ZOL'106'0O/' l00 '86/88 '000'6£
OHn00'OOS8£8lLZIZoooz 'i Nvr
ISO VOISdV 'ON00 '009«nH oos <
33SV1S31IOS1V03AINO ssnod
S3nOd ? 1V3HUSSOdd-l
\,1118Z61Z9SI6£l/6/£/l
6i(/ri 'AdlVHiN3 iNIOd ON3 S3SN3QN03 t SS0 '3aniVS3dH31 3NISN3QN03 ! S
6H IUD '3!inSS3Sd«Va 3NI8Sni ! £S'HV31S 3SnSS3SdX3Vfl ZS
:V1VO 33NVWSOdS3d lid 3SOdSnd-lVnO ISOS
31VS 33Vif10 03NNVldNO ! 6»3J.VS 33VinO Q3NNVld ! 9»
0 '3SniVS3dH31 9NISN3QN03 ! L1S*/n 'AdlVHlN3 INIOd ON3 Ü3SN30N03 ! 9*
BH UI3 '3anSS3Sd>3Va S3SN3QN03 ! SVA3N3IOIdd3 dWHd S31V» DN 11003 ! •»sva 'av3H dwrid S3ivn SNIIOOO ! £V
3 '33NVS S3SN3QN03 ! ZIAON3IOIdd3 S31I08 ! dX 'A3N3I3Idd3 13N ! 0<!
:V1VQ 33NVHSOd3Sd iNVld 3SV8 6£===================================== Q£
VIVO IHdNI 30NVHSOdS3d /£asvoNVis b3ivn DNIXNISO lonoosd s£
Hdd 'SOI10S Q3A10SSia IViOi S31VnV3S »£3 'dH31 S31Vn ON 11003 N t) IS 30 OS ££
3 'dH31 S31Vn ON 11003 NOIS30 lid Snd Z£0 'dH31 S31Vn 3NI1003 IVClNNV 3AV l£
31VO 30IAS3S 0£NOI1V001 Q3HnSSV 6Z
9Z(inH) snw 'indino 13N 03i33i3s LZOnH) »rtW 33NVS 3ZIS 9Z
AM03V1V3 3ZIS SZA3010NH031 NOISS3AN03 S3Wd K
3dAi 130d £ZZZ
13nOOSd l Z3dAl INVld OZ
3SV3 6lS3I1SIS313VSVH3 INVld /l== — =--============================= ff no
ASVHHDSSNOIlVniVA3 3IHON003SNouvinoivo isoo
SNOIlVinOlVO 33NVHSOdS3dV1VQ iridNI S313HVSVd OIHON033viva indNi iso3
VI va indNl 30NVMSOdS3dSOI1SIS310VSVH3 INVld
QN3 noa : N O I i V Z I N V O a O
xinvno lonaoüd d3iVMllSSOd 30UnOSAOd3N3 fr 3SVO
56 i57585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106 i107108 i109110
ENTHALPY IN CONDENSATE, kJ/kg
THERHAL WATER PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA:DESALINATION TECHNOLOGYPRODUCT WATER TDS, PPMMAXIMUM BRINE TEMPERATURE, CGOR, kg PROOUCT/kg STEAMNUMBER OF EFFECTSUNIT SIZE, CU.M/DSEAWATER/PROOUCT FLOW RATIOSEAWATER HEAD + PRESS LOSS, BARSEAWATER PUMP EFFICIENCYWATER PLANT SPEC. PWR USE kWe/CU.M/DWTR PIT PLANNED OUTAGE RATEWTR PLT UNPLANNED OUTAGE RATEMEMBRANE WATER PLT PERFORMANCE DATA:NO. STAGES TO MEET WATER STANDARDOUTPUT PER UNIT, CU.MSEAWATER TDS, PPMPRODUCT WATER TDS, PPMRECOVERY RATIOSEA WATER PUMP HEAD, BARSEA WATER PUMP EFFICIENCYBOOSTER PUMP HEAD, BARBOOSTER PUMP EFFICIENCYSTAGE 1 HIGH HO PUMP PRESS RISE, BARSTAGE 1 HIGH HEAD PUMP EFFICIENCYSTG 1 HYDRAULIC COUPLING EFFICIENCYENERGY RECOVERY EFFICENCYSTG 2 HYDRAULIC COUPLING EFFICIENCYSTAGE 2 HIGH HD PUMP PRESS RISE, BARSTAGE 2 HIGH HEAD PUMP EFFICIENCYOTHER SPECIFIC POWER USE, kWe/CU.M/DRO PLANT AVAILABILITYCOST INPUT DATAPOWER PLANT COST DATA:SPEC. CONSTR. COST, $/kWe ($/kWt)ADDITION!. CONSTR. COST, $/kUe (S/kWOTOTAL CONSTR. COST, $/kWe (S/kWt)CONSTRUCTION LEAD TIME, MONTHSSPECIFIC O&M COST, $/MWeh (S/MWth)ASSUMED BASE PRICE OF OIL, Ï/B8LASSUMED BASE PRICE OF COAL, $/T
(INCLUDES S10/T TRANSPORT COST)FUEL ANNUAL REAL ESCALATION, X
309.90
LT-MEO25.0070.0012.20
1648,000
8.501.700.900.0830.0300.065
124000.0038500.00200.00
0.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.9650.000.90
0.04080.91
1200.00120.001320.0048.003.00
N/A60.000.00
309.90
LT-MED25.0070.0012.20
1648,000
8.501.700.900.0830.0300.065
124000.0038500.00200.00
0.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.9650.000.90
0.04080.91
1400.00140.001540.0048.003.00
N/A60.000.00
309.90
LT-MED25.0070.0012.20
1648,000
8.501.700.900.0830.0300.065
124000.0038500.00200.000.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.9650.000.90
0.04080.91
500.0050.00550.0036.005.0025.50
N/A0.00
309.90
LT-MED25.0070.0012.20
1648,000
8.501.700.900.0830.0300.065
124000.0038500.00200.000.501.700.903.300.9082.000.850.9650.900.9650.000.90
0.04080.91
600.0060.00660.0036.005.0025.50
N/A0.00
N/A
LT-MED25.00100.0017.00
2348,0007.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
124000.0038500.00200.000.501.700.902.700.9082.000.800.9650.900.9650.000.90
0.04080.91
400.0040.00440.0024.006.0025.50
N/A0.00
N/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
124000.0038500.00200.00
0.501.700.902.700.9082.000.800.9650.900.9650.000.90
0.04080.91
1000.00100.001100.00
18.004.0025.50
N/A0.00
N/A
LT-MED25.00120.0021.00
2848,000
5.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
400.0040.00440.0036.00
1.00N/A60.000.00
N/A
LT-MED25.00120.0021.00
2848,000
5.001.700.900.0830.0300.065
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
400.0040.00440.0012.001.0025.50
N/A0.00
788910
11
12813
1415
16
111112 i113 i114115 i116 i117 i118 i119 i120 i121 i122 i123124125 i126 i127 i128 i129 i130 i131 i132 i133 i134 i135136137 i138139140141142 i143144 i145146147 i148149 i150151152 i153154 i15515615715815916016116216Î164165
THERMAL WATER PLANT COST DATA:CORRECTION FACTOR FOR UNIT SIZEBASE UNIT COST, S/CU.M/DWATER PLT COST CONTG'CY FACTORWATER PLT OWNERS COST FACTORWATER PLT LEAD TIME, MONTHSAVERAGE MANAGEMENT SALARY, S/YRAVERAGE LABOR SALARY, t/YRSPECIFIC O&M SUPPLIES COST, S/CU.MSPECIFIC O&M CHEH COST, $/CU.MWATER PLT O&M INS COST,X BASE CAP
RO WATER PLANT COST DATA:UNIT COST, S/CU.M/DWATER PLT COST CONTG'CY FACTORWATER PLT OWNERS COST FACTORWATER PLT LEAD TIME, MONTHSAVERAGE MANAGEMENT SALARY, S/YRAVERAGE LABOR SALARY, $/YRO&M MEMBRANE REPLACEMENT, S/CU.NO&M SPARE PARTS COST, S/CU.MSPECIFIC CHEMICAL COST, S/CU.MWATER PLT O&M INS COST.X BASE CAPMAXIMUM RO OUTPUT:WATER PLT LEAD TIME, MONTHSECONOMIC PARAMETER INPUT DATA:CASE 1: 5X INTEREST RATE
INTEREST & AFUDC RATE, X/YRLN-91S FIXED CHARGE RATE, XPURCHASED ELECTRICITY COST, S/kWh
CASE 2: 8X INTEREST RATEINTEREST & AFUDC RATE, X/YRLN-91S FIXED CHARGE RATE, XPURCHASED ELECTRICITY COST, S/kWh
CASE 3: 10X INTEREST RATEINTEREST & AFUDC RATE, X/YRLN-91S FIXED CHARGE RATE, XPURCHASED ELECTRICITY COST, S/kWh
PERFORMANCE CALCULATIONS
S INGLE -PURPOSE PLT PREFORMANCE:THERMAL POWER, HWtPLANT GROSS OUTPUT, MWePLANT AUX LOADS, MWeCONDENSER COOLING WTR FLOU, kg/sCONDENSER COOLING WTR PUMP POWER, MWeOPERATING AVAILABILITY
0.901440.00
0.100.0560.00
60000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
1125.000.100.0536.00
60000.0027000.00
0.080.030.070.50
AS. 00
5.006.51
N/A
8.008.88
N/A
10.0010.61
N/A
2051.28842.1142.11
37365.097.45
0.801
0.901440.00
0.100.0548.00
60000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
1125.000.100.0536.00
60000.0027000.00
0.080.030.070.50
48.00
5.006.51
N/A
8.008.88
N/A
10.0010.61
N/A
1282.05525.0025.00
23353.184.66
0.801
0.901440.00
0.100.0536.00
60000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
1125.000.100.0536.00
60000.0027000.00
0.080.030.070.50
48.00
5.006.51
N/A
8.008.88
N/A
10.0010.61
N/A
869.57420.0020.00
11334.372.26
0.801
0.901440.00
0.100.0524.00
60000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
1125.000.100.0536.00
60000.0027000.00
0.080.030.070.50
48.00
5.006.51
N/A
8.008.88
N/A
10.0010.61
N/A
326.09157.50
7.504250.39
0.850.801
0.901600.00
0.100.0536.00
60000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
1125.000.100.0536.00
60000.0027000.00
0.080.030.070.50
48.00
5.006.51
N/A
8.008.88
N/A
10.0010.61
N/A
322.58105.00
5.00N/AN/A
0.801
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
1125.000.100.0536.00
60000.0027000.00
0.080.030.070.50
48.00
5.006.51
N/A
8.008.88
N/A
10.0010.61
N/A
100.0052.502.50
N/AN/A0.903
0.901680.00
0.100.0524.00
60000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A
5.006.510.04
8.008.880.05
10.0010.610.06
500.00N/A
5.00N/AN/A0.903
0.901680.00
0.100.05
18.0060000.0027000.00
0.0400.0200.50
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A
5.006.510.04
8.008.880.05
10.0010.610.06
100.00N/A
1.00N/AN/A0.903
1819
202122
166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
DUAL-PURPOSE PIT PERFORMANCE:BACKPRESS TURB EXHAUST STM FLOW, kg/sLOST ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION, MUeNET ELEC PROD, MWeTOTAL HEAT TO WTR PLT, MWtALTERNATE REJECT HEAT CHECK, HUt
DRY STEAM TO MED, kg/s
THERMAL WATER PLANT PERFORMANCE:MAXIMUM WATER PLT CAPACITY, CU.M/DAYNUMBER OF UNITSSEAWATER FLOW, kg/sINCREMENTAL SEAUATER PUMPING PWR, MUeWATER PLANT POWER USE, MWeWATER PLT PLUS SEAWATER PUMP PWR, MWeWTR PLT OPERATING AVAILABILTIYCOMBINED PWR/WTR PLT CAPACITY FACTORANNUAL WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/YRAVG. DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/DRO WATER PLANT PERFORMANCE:PRODUCT CAPACITY, CU.M/DAYNUMBER OF RO UNITSSEAWATER FLOW, kg/sSTAND-ALONE SEAWATER PUMPING PWR, MWeCONTIGUOUS SEAWATER PUMPING PWR, MWeBOOSTER PUMP POWER, MWeSTAGE 1 HIGH HEAD PUMP POWER, MWeENERGY RECOVERY, MWeSTAGE 2 HIGH HEAD PUMP POWER, MWeOTHER POWER, MWeTOTAL STAND-ALONE POWER USE, HWeTOTAL CONTIGUOUS POWER USE, MWeANNUAL AVG. WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/YRAVG. DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/DAYSPEC. POWER CONSUM. (S-A), kWh/CU.MSPEC. POWER CONSUM. (CONT), kWh/CU.MNET PLANT SALEABLE POWER(S-A), MWeNET PLANT SALEABLE POWER(CONT), MWeMAXIMUM RO PLANT OUTPUT:PRODUCT CAPACITY, CU.M/DAYNUMBER OF RO UNITSSEAWATER FLOW, kg/sTOTAL POWER USE, MWeANNUAL AVG. WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/YRAVG. DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, CU.M/DAYNET POWER PLANT SALEABLE POWER, HWeCOST CALCULATIONS=====================================
451. 1195.57704.431035.071063.46
446.15
470,28110.0046,266
1.7839.0340.810.9070.750
128,679,259352,546
470,28120.0010,8862.170.004.21
114.9040.720.0019.1999.7697.59
156,203,730427,955
5.094.98
700.24702.41
3,855,206161.0089,241800.00
1,280,506,5613,508,237
0.00
==============
281.9459.49440.51646.92665.75
278.85
293,9257.00
28,9161.1124.4025.510.9070.750
80,424,537220,341
293,92513.006,8041.360.002.63
71.8125.450.0011.9962.3560.99
97,627,331267,472
5.094.98
437.65439.01
2,409,504101.0055,776500.00
800,316,6002,192,648
0.00
-====--=======
166.8229.17370.83382.19402.31
164.74
173,6464.00
17,0831.15
14.4115.560.9070.750
47,513,417130,174
173,6468.004,0200.800.001.5642.4315.030.007.0836.8436.03
57,676,529158,018
5.094.98
363.16363.97
1,927,60381.0044,620400.00
640,253,2801,754,119
0.00
==============
62.5610.94139.06143.32150.86
61.78
65,1172.006,4060.435.405.830.9070.750
17,817,53248,815
65,1173.001,5070.300.000.5815.915.640.002.6613.8113.51
21,628,69859,2575.094.98
136.19136.49
722,85131.0016,733150.00
240,094,980657,794
0.00
===========-==
N/AN/A100.00222.58
N/A
95.94
140,9173.00
11,4172.2811.7013.970.9070.750
38,557,910105,638
140,9176.003,2620.650.001.0336.5812.200.005.7531.8131.16
46,805,440128,234
5.425.31
68.1968.84
452,17619.0010,467100.00
150,190,328411,480
0.00============================
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
184,0498.004,2600.850.001.3547.7815.930.007.51
41.5540.70
61,131,902167,485
5.425.318.459.30
226,08810.005,23450.00
75,095,164205,740
0.00
N/AN/AN/A500.00
N/A
215.52
391,0349.00
22,6294.5132.4636.970.9070.844
120,462,083330,033
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
_ _______
N/AN/AN/A
100.00N/A
43.10
78,2072.004,5260.906.497.390.9070.844
24,092,41766,007
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
———— - -
24
2526
27
28
2930
====
221 THERMAL WATER PLANT COSTS:222 NUMBER OF UNITS223 COMPARATIVE NUMBER224 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION225 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION226 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR NO. OF UNITS227 WATER PLT SPECIFIC BASE COST, S/CU.M/D228 INC IN/OUTFALL SPEC. BS CT, S/OJ.M/D229230 TOTAL SPECIFIC BASE COST, $/MGD231 NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL232 WATER PLT O&M MGMT COST,M$/Y233 NUMBER OF LABOR PERSONNEL234 WATER PLT O&M LABOR COST.M$/Y235 WATER PLT ADJUSTED BASE COST, MS236 WATER PLT OWNERS COST, MS237 WATER PLT CONTINGENCY ,MS238 WATER PLT TOT CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$239 WATER PLT O&M COST.HS/YR240241 RO WATER PLANT COSTS:242 NUMBER OF UNITS243 COMPARATIVE NUMBER244 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION245 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION246 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR NO. OF UNITS247 PROCESS PLT SPECIFIC COST,$/CU.M/0248 STND-ALN IN/OUTFALL SPEC.CT, S/CU.M/D249 STND-ALN WTR PLNT SPEC. CT, S/CU.M/D250 NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL251 WATER PLT O&M HGMT COST.MS/Y252 NUMBER OF LABOR PERSONNEL253 WATER PLT O&M LABOR COST.MS/Y254 STND-ALN WTR PLT ADJUSTED BASE CT,M$255 CONTIGUOUS WTR PLT ADJUSTED BS, M$256 WATER PLT OWNERS COST, MS257 WATER PLT CONTINGENCY ,H$258 STND-ALN WTR PLT TOT CONSTRUCT CT ,MS259 CONTIGUOUS WTR PLT TOT CONSTR CT, MS260 WATER PLT O&M COST.MS/YR261262 MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT:263 NUMBER OF UNITS264 COMPARATIVE NUMBER265 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION266 INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION267 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR NO. OF UNITS268 PROCESS PLT SPECIFIC COST, S/CU.M/D269 1NCRHTL IN/OUTFALL SPEC. CT, S/CU.M/0270 WATER PLANT SPEC. BASE COST, S/CU.M/D271 NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL272 NUMBER OF LABOR PERSONNEL273 WATER PLT O&M MGMT COST.MS/Y274 WATER PLT OiM LABOR COST.MS/Y275 WATER PLT ADJUSTED BASE COST, MS
10.0014.00-4.0000.8020.802
1040.0117.86
1057.8713
0.7860
1.63497.4924.8752.24574.6112.62
20.0014.006.0000.6220.725815.6362.29877.91
130.7860
1.63412.87383.5720.6443.35476.86443.0332.59
161.0014.00
147.0000.0170.725815.6310.92826.55
74140
4.443.79
3186.52
7.0014.00-7.0000.8660.866
1122.4221.55
1143.9710
0.6050
1.35336.2416.8135.31388.368.46
13.0014.00-1.0000.7440.744836.5075.17911.67
100.6050
1.35267.96245.8713.4028.14309.50283.9820.87
101.0014.0087.0000.0790.725815.6313.18828.81
481162.883.14
1997.02
4.0014.00
-10.0000.9350.935
1211.3748.24
1259.618
0.4841
1.10218.7310.9422.97252.635.52
8.0014.00-6.0000.8440.844949.8792.79
1042.668
0.4841
1.10181.05164.949.0519.01209.12190.5112.86
81.0014.0067.0000.1320.725815.6319.86835.48
39106
2.342.87
1610.48
2.0014.00
-12.0000.9830.983
1274.5571.41
1345.966
0.3627
0.7487.654.389.20
101.232.61
3.0014.00
-11.0000.9590.959
1078.61137.361215.97
60.3627
0.7479.1870.243.968.3191.4581.125.39
31.0014.0017.0000.4710.725815.6329.40845.02
1872
1.081.94
610.83
3.0014.00
-11.0000.9590.959
1380.62213.901594.52
70.4237
1.01224.6911.2323.59259.524.87
6.0014.00-8.0000.8880.888999.41100.871100.28
70.4237
1.01155.05140.837.7516.28179.08162.6610.63
19.0014.005.0000.6380.725815.6363.27878.90
1360
0.781.61
397.42
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
8.0014.00-6.0000.8440.844949.8790.65
1040.528
0.4842
1.12191.51174.829.58
20.11221.19201.9213.56
10.0014.00-4.0000.8020.802902.7983.49986.28
945
0.541.22
222.99
9.0014.00-5.0000.8230.823
1244.58116.201360.79
120.7256
1.52532.1126.6155.87614.5912.13
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
2.0014.00
-12.0000.9830.983
1486.98221.211708.19
60.3630
0.80133.596.6814.03154.303.27
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
toto276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330
WATER PIT OWNERS COST, MSWATER PIT CONTINGENCY ,M$WATER PIT TOT CONSTRUCTION COST ,H$WATER PIT O&M COST,H$/YR
ECONOMIC EVALUATIONSCASE 1: 5X INTEREST RATE-POWER PLANT COST
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MSAFUDC, MSTOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, H$LEVEL I ZED ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, MSFUEL REAL ESCALATION FACTORSPECIFIC FUEL COST, S/MWheANNUAL FUEL COST, MSANNUAL O&M COST, HS/YRELEC. PWR COST (HEAT ONLY), MS/YRTOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, M$LEVEL I ZED POWER COST, $/kWh
-THERMAL (MED) PLANT:ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YRTOT CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$AFUDC ,M$TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, HS/YRWATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YRTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
-STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:MED EQUIVALANT OUTPUT:ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YRTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,MSAFUDC ,MSTOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, HS/YRWATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YRTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
•CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:MED EQUIVALANT OUTPUT:ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YRTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$AFUDC ,M$TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YRWATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YRTOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
159.33334.583521.10254.65
1056.00108.241164.2475.741.00
21.87122.7816.84
N/A215.350.038
128,679,259574.6174.54649.1542.2324.0810.2812.620.69
156,203,730476.8636.21513.0733.380.0030.5132.590.62
156,203,730443.0333.64476.6731.010.0029.8432.590.60
99.85209.692206.70160.06
770.0078.92848.9255.221.00
21.8776.7310.53
N/A142.480.041
80,424,537388.3639.81428.1727.8515.876.808.460.73
97,627,331309.5023.50333.0021.660.00
20.1920.870.64
97,627,331283.9821.56305.5419.880.0019.7520.870.62
80.52169.101779.58128.51
220.0016.70236.7015.401.00
32.6191.5314.03
N/A120.960.043
47,513,417252.6319.18
271.8117.688.264.405.520.75
57,676,529209.1215.88224.9914.640.0012.6512.860.70
57,676,529190.5114.47204.9713.330.0012.3812.860.67
30.5464.14674.9649.29
99.007.52
106.526.931.00
32.6134.325.26
N/A46.520.044
17,817,532101.235.06
106.296.913.171.692.610.81
21,628,69891.456.9498.406.400.004.875.390.77
21,628,69881.126.1687.285.680.004.765.390.73
19.8741.73439.1531.41
44.002.2046.203.011.0048.3933.954.21
N/A41.170.059
38,557,910259.5219.71279.2318.160.005.384.870.74
46,805,440179.0813.60192.6812.530.0014.8810.630.81
46,805,440162.6612.35175.0111.380.0014.5810.630.78
11.1523.41246.4016.39
55.002.0557.053.711.00
30.0011.861.58
N/A17.150.043
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
61,131,902221.1916.79237.9915.480.0014.3713.560.71
61,131,902201.9215.33
217.2514.130.0014.0813.560.68
N/AN/AN/AN/A
220.0016.70236.7015.401.008.5333.723.951.5854.65
N/A
120,462,083614.5930.73645.3241.9854.6510.9312.130.99
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/A
44.001.09
45.092.931.0015.0011.860.790.3215.90
N/A
24,092,417154.305.75
160.0510.4115.902.193.271.32
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
K)
331332 -MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):333 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR334 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$335 AFUOC ,M$336 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$337 TOTAL WATER COST, $/CU.M338339 CASE 2: 8X INTEREST RATE340 -POWER PLANT COST341 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, M$342 AFUOC, M$343 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, MS344 LEVELIZED ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, MS345 FUEL REAL ESCALATION FACTOR346 LEVELIZED ANNUAL FUEL PRICE, MS347 TOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, MS348 LEVELIZED POWER COST, S/kWh349350 -THERMAL (MED) PLANT:351 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MS352 AFUOC, MS353 TOTAL WATER PLANT INVESTMENT, MS354 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR355 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR356 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR357 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, HS/YR358 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M359360 -STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:361 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,MS362 AFUOC ,MS363 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$364 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR365 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR366 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR367 WATER CT, OÄM CHARGE, MS/YR368 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M369370 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:371 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$372 AFUDC ,M$373 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$374 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR375 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR376 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR377 WATER CT, OS« CHARGE, MS/YR378 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M379380 MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):381 ANNUAL WATER PRCO, CU.M/YR382 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,MS383 AFUDC ,M$384 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$385 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M
1,280,506,5613521.10360.913882.01
0.59
1056.00175.721231.72109.41
1.00122.78249.030.044
574.61121.91696.5161.8727.8411.8912.620.89
476.8658.35535.2147.540.0035.2832.590.74
443.0354.21497.2444.170.00
34.5132.590.71
1,280,506,5613521.10585.914107.01
0.70
800,316,6002206.70226.192432.89
0.60
770.00128.13898.1379.781.0076.73167.040.048
388.3664.62452.9840.2418.607.978.460.94
309.5037.87347.3730.860.0023.6620.870.77
283.9834.75318.7328.310.00
23.1520.870.74
800,316,6002206.70367.202573.90
0.72
640,253,2801779.58182.411961.99
0.61
220.0026.92246.9221.931.00
91.53127.500.045
252.6330.91283.5425.198.704.645.520.93
209.1225.59234.7120.850.0013.3412.860.82
190.5123.31213.8218.990.0013.0512.860.78
640,253,2801779.58296.122075.70
0.71
240,094,980674.9669.18744.15
0.63
99.0012.11
111.119.871.0034.3249.460.047
101.238.10
109.339.713.381.802.610.98
91.4511.19102.64
9.120.005.175.390.91
81.129.93
91.058.090.005.065.390.86
240,094,980674.96112.31787.28
0.73
150,190,328439.1545.01484.16
0.73
44.003.5247.524.221.0033.9542.390.060
259.5231.76291.2825.870.005.544.870.94
179.0821.91200.9917.850.00
15.3210.630.94
162.6619.90182.5716.220.00
15.0110.630.89
150,190,328439.1573.07512.22
0.83
75,095,164246.4025.26271.65
0.68
55.003.2758.275.181.00
11.8618.620.047
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
221.1927.07248.2622.050.00
15.6013.560.84
201.9224.71226.6320.130.00
15.2813.560.80
75,095,164246.4041.00287.40
0.81
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
220.0026.92246.9221.931.0033.7261.19
N/A
614.5949.17663.7658.9661.1913.6712.131.21
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
44.001.73
45.734.061.00
11.8617.03
N/A
154.309.17
163.4714.5217.032.733.271.56
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
K) 386387 CASE 3: 10X INTEREST RATE388 -POWER PLANT COST389 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MS390 AFUOC, MS391 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, MS392 LEVELI2EO ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, MS393 FUEL REAL ESCALATION FACTOR394 LEVEL I ZED ANNUAL FUEL COST, MS395 TOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, MS396 LEVEL I ZED POWER COST, S/kWh397398 -THERMAL (MED) PLANT:399 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST400 AFUOC ,M$401 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,MS402 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR403 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR404 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR405 WATER CT, O&H CHARGE, MS/YR406 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M407408 -STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:409 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MS410 AFUOC, MS411 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$412 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR413 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR414 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR415 WATER CT, OiM CHARGE, MS/YR416 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M417418 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:419 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, M$420 AFUOC, MS421 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,MS422 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, MS/YR423 WATER CT, HEAT CHARGE, MS/YR424 WATER CT, ELEC CHARGE, MS/YR425 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, MS/YR426 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M427428 MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):429 ANNUAL WATER PROD, CU.M/YR430 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ,M$431 AFUOC ,MS432 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$433 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M434 =====================================435436437438439440
1056.00221.761277.76135.541.00
122.78275.160.049
574.61154.60729.2177.3530.7613.1412.621.04
476.8673.29
550.1558.360.0038.9832.590.83
443.0368.09
511.1254.220.00
38.1332.590.80
1,280,506,5613521.10739.434260.53
0.80
770.00161.70931.7098.831.0076.73186.090.053
388.3681.56469.9249.8520.728.888.461.09
309.5047.57357.0637.880.0026.3620.870.87
283.9843.64327.6234.750.0025.7920.870.83
800,316,6002206.70463.412670.11
0.82
220.0033.81253.8126.921.00
91.53132.490.047
252.6338.83291.4530.929.044.825.521.06
209.1232.14241 .2625.590.0013.8612.860.91
190.5129.28219.7923.310.0013.5612.860.86
640,253,2801779.58373.712153.29
0.79
99.0015.22
1U.2212.121.0034.3251.700.049
101.2310.12
111.3511.813.531.882.611.11
91.4514.06
105.5111.190.005.415.391.02
81.1212.4793.599.930.005.295.390.95
240,094,980674.96141.74816.71
0.81
44.004.4048.405.131.00
33.9543.300.062
259.5239.89299.4131.760.005.664.871.10
179.0827.52206.6021.920.0015.6510.631.03
162.6625.00187.6619.910.0015.3310.630.98
150,190,328439.1592.22531.370.91
55.004.0859.086.271.0011.8619.710.050
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
221.1933.99255.1927.070.0016.5113.560.93
201.9231.03232.9524.710.0016.1813.560.89
75,095,164246.4051.74298.140.90
220.0033.81253.8126.921.0033.7266.18
N/A
614.5961.46676.0571.7266.1816.4012.131.38
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
44.002.15
46.154.901.0011.8617.86
N/A
154.3011.43165.7317.5817.863.283.271.74
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N»
441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495
SUMMARYCASEPLANT TYPEPRODUCTFUEL TYPEPOWER CONVERSION TECHNOLOGYSELECTED NET OUTPUT, MWe (MWt)PRODUCT DRINKING WATER STANDARDSUMMARY CASE 1: 5X INT & AFUDC RATE-LEVELIZED POWER COST */kWh-PURCHASED POWER COST, $/kWh-THERMAL MED PLANT (OPTIMIZED)
WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
•STAND-ALONE RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, $/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MAXIMUM OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.H
SUMMARY CASE 2: 8X INT & AFUDC RATE-LEVELIZED POWER COST $/kWh-PURCHASED POWER COST, S/kWh-THERMAL MED PLANT (OPTIMIZED)
WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-STAND-ALONE RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, J/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MED EQ. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MAXIMUM OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
SUMMARY CASE 3: 10X INT t AFUOC RATE-LEVELIZED POWER COST, $/kWh-PURCHASED POWER COST, $/kWh
1-FFOSSIL
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
COALBOILER
800.00EEC
0.038N/A470,281663.620.69
470,281700.240.62
470281702.410.60
3,855,2060.000.59
0.044N/A470,281663.620.89
470,281700.240.74
470281702.410.71
3,855,2060.000.70
0.049N/A
2-FFOSSIL
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
COALBOILER
500.00EEC
0.041N/A293,925415.000.73
293,925437.650.64
293925439.010.62
2,409,5040.000.60
0.048N/A293,925415.000.94
293,925437.650.77
293925439.010.74
2,409,5040.000.72
0.053N/A
3-FFOSSIL
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
OIL-GASCOMBINED CYCLE
400.00EEC
0.043N/A173,646355.270.75
173,646363.160.70
173646363.970.67
1,927,6030.000.61
0.045N/A173,646355.270.93
173,646363.160.82
173646363.970.78
1,927,6030.000.71
0.047N/A
4-FFOSSIL
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
OIL-GASCOMBINED CYCLE
150.00EEC
0.044N/A65,117133.230.81
65,117136.190.77
65117136.490.73
722,8510.000.63
0.047N/A65,117133.230.98
65,117136.19
0.9165117136.490.86
722,8510.000.73
0.049N/A
5-FFOSSIL
HEAT & POWERPOWER ONLY
OIL-GASGAS-TURBINE
100.00EEC
0.059N/A140,91786.030.74
140,91768.190.81
14091768.840.78
452,1760.000.73
0.060N/A140,91786.030.94
140,91768.190.94
14091768.840.89
452,1760.000.83
0.062N/A
6-FFOSSIL
POWER ONLYOIL
LOW-SPD DIESEL50.00
EEC
0.043N/AN/AN/AN/A184,049
8.450.71
1840499.300.68
226,0880.000.68
0.047N/AN/AN/AN/A184,049
8.450.84
1840499.300.80
226,0880.000.81
0.050N/A
7- FFOSSIL
HEAT ONLYCOAL
BOILER500.00
EEC
N/A0.04
391,034N/A
0.99N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.05
391,034N/A
1.21N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.06
8-FFOSSIL
HEAT ONLYOIL-GASBOILER
100.00EEC
N/A0.04
78,207N/A
1.32N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/A0.05
78,207N/A
1.56N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/A0.06
496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550
-THERMAL MED PLANT (OPTIMIZED)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, HUeWATER COST, $/CU.M
-STAND-ALONE RO PLT (MED Ed. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, $/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MED Ed. OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, MWeWATER COST, S/CU.M
-CONTIGUOUS RO PLT (MAXIMUM OUTPUT)WATER PRODUCTION CAPACITY, CU.M/DNET SALEABLE POWER, HWeWATER COST, $/CU.M
INVESTMENT COSTS - 8X INTEREST RATEPOWER PLANT
SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION COST, S/kW- POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS- POWER PLANT IDC, MS
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, MSSPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/kW
POWER & THERMAL MED PLANT- POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS- POWER PLANT IDC, MS-PWR PLT COST PORTION OF WTR PROD MS- MED PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS- MED PLANT IDC, M$TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, MS
- MED CAPACITY, CU.M/DSPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/CU.M/D
POWER & S-A RO (MED EQ.) PLANT- POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS- POWER PLANT IDC, MS-PWR PLT COST PORTION OF WTR PROD MS- RO PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS- RO PLANT IDC, M$TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, MS
- RO (MED EQ.) CAPACITY, CU.M/DSPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/CU.M/D
POWER & CONT. RO (MAX.) PLANT- POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS- POWER PLANT IDC, M$- RO PLANT CONSTRUCTION, MS• RO PLANT IDC, MSTOTAL INVESTMENT COST, MS
- RO (MAX.) CAPACITY, CU.M/DSPECIFIC INVESTMENT COST, S/CU.M/D
470,281663.62
1.04470,281700.240.83
470281702.410.80
3,855,2060.000.80
1320105617612321540
1056176210575122906
4702811928
105617615447758689
4702811465
1056176
35215865339
38640001382
293,935415.00
1.09293,925437.650.87
293925439.010.83
2,409,5040.000.82
15407701288981796
77012815338865606
2939252061
77012811230938459
2939251563
770128
22073673472
24240001432
173,646355.271.06
173,646363.160.91
173646363.970.86
1,927,6030.000.79
55022027247617
220272825331
3111736461792
220272320926257
1736461483
22027
17802962323
19440001195
65,117133.23
1.1165,117136.191.02
65117136.490.95
722,8510.000.81
6609912
111741
991212
1018
122651171870
9912109111
113651171733
9912
675112898
7440001208
140,91786.031.10
140,91768.191.03
14091768.840.98
452,1760.000.91
44044448475
4447
26032298
1409172114
4441517922216
1409171534
444
43973560
4560001227
N/AN/AN/A184,049
8.450.93
1840499.300.89
226,0880.000.90
==============
110055358
1165
553
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
5534822127297
1840491612
553
24641346
2400001440
391,034N/A
1.38N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
==============
44022027247494
2202724761549
9113910342329
22027247
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
22027
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
78,207N/A
1.74N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/A
44044246457
442461549
209782072675
44246
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
442
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
551 ==== = s===============================552 CASE 2: 8% INTEREST RATE553 =====================================554 -POWER PLANT COST555 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT, MS556 LEVEL I ZED ANNUAL CAPITAL COST, M$557 TOTAL ANNUAL REQUIRED REVENUE, M$558 LEVELIZED POWER COST, S/kUh559560 -THERMAL (MED) PLANT:561 TOTAL WATER PLANT INVESTMENT, M$562 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.M563 WATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.M564 WATER CT, O&M CHARGE, S/CU.M565 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M566567 -STAND-ALONE RO PLANT:568 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$569 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.M570 WATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.M571 WATER CT, OSM CHARGE, S/CU.M572 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M573574 -CONTIGUOUS RO PLANT:575 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,M$576 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.M577 WATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.M578 WATER CT, OÄH CHARGE, S/CU.M579 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.H580581 -MAXIMUM RO OUTPUT (CONTIGUOUS):582 TOTAL INVESTMENT ,MS583 WATER CT, FIXED CHARGE, S/CU.M584 WATER CT, ENERGY CHARGE, S/CU.M585 WATER CT, OÄM CHARGE, S/CU.M586 TOTAL WATER COST, S/CU.M587
==============
1231.72109.41249.030.044
696.510.480.310.100.89
535.210.300.230.210.74
497.240.280.220.210.71
4107.010.280.220.200.70
==============898.1379.78167.040.048
452.980.500.330.110.94
347.370.320.240.210.77
318.730.290.240.210.74
2573.900.290.240.200.72
==============
246.9221.93127.500.045
283.540.530.280.120.93
234.710.360.230.220.82
213.820.330.230.220.78
2075 . 700.290.230.200.71
111.119.8749.460.047
109.330.550.290.150.98
102.640.420.240.250.91
91.050.370.230.250.86
787.280.290.230.210.73
==============
47.524.2242.390.060
291.280.670.140.130.94
200.990.380.330.230.94
182.570.350.320.230.89
512.220.300.320.210.83
==============
58.275.1818.620.047
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
248.260.360.260.220.84
226.630.330.250.220.80
287.400.340.250.220.81
==============
246.9221.9361.19
N/A
663.760.490.620.101.21
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
===:==: — = — = ====• =
==============
45.734.0617.03
N/A
163.470.600.820.141.56
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
10-J
K>OO
NOTES1 Sink temperature basis for MED and RO performance2 Extrapolated from San Onofre (PUR) Units 2&3 full power heat balance3 Small PUR turbine performance was arbitrarily reduced due to size4 From EPRI TAG report5 Intermediate loops required for both dual-purpose and heat only reactors because
primary pressure is higher than steam pressure in both cases.6 GOR value considers flash steam from intermediate loop as an additional effect7 Based on 2.0 kWh/cu.m accounting for internal and vacuum pumping (1.25 kWh/cu.m),post-treatment (0.25kWh/cu.m), general aux. (0.20kWh/cu.m) and product storage (o.3kWh/c
8 Based on 0.98 kWh/cu.m for post-treatment (0.25kWh/cu.m), final storage pumping(0.30 kWh/cu.m) and general auxiliaries (0.25 kWh/cu.m) PLUS.18 FOR CHEM MFG.
9 Based on DuPont PERMASEPT hollow fiber membranes10 Two stages are required to meet 25ppm chloride limit for EEC. Only one stage
is required for WHO limit.11 Based on micro-filtration pretreatment requiring 35 meters (water) head.12 From report, taken as 0.9/6.1 IcWe/cu.m/day in ratio of power use.13 Based on typical product warranty limits of less than 800 hrs/yr outage.14 From supplier data and includes owner's cost, contingency and intake/outfall.15 10X was added to base cost to cover construction in other than supplier country16 Fuel and maintenance cost for heat only corrected by 33% efficiency to allow ratio
to thermal power.17 Allowance was based on 1 mill/kWh. Thermal plants corrected by 33X to allow ratio
to thermal plants.18 To correct unit size cost for larger units (i.e. 48,000cu.m/day from 24,000cu.m/day)19 Base unit cost from supplier data for 24,000 cu.m/day without intake/outfall,
owner's cost contingency and AFUOC.20 Base plant auxiliary loads were set at 5X of gross power (=0.05/0.95*Net)
for electric plants and 1X of thermal power for thermal plants21 Heat rejection power is calculated to determine incremental desal pumping load
22 Definition of "Operating Availability» per EPRI TAG report.23 Ratio of San Onofre conditions after adjusting for higher backpressure.24 Equals old shaft power divided by generator and mechanical efficiencies. Old
shaft power was old flow (983*Thermal Power/3408) times new and old end pointenthalpies plus adjusments for extraction flows.25 Approximated on the basis of exhaust flow times difference of turbine and
condenser enthalpies plus small addition for feedwater heating return.Lower efficiency for Case 4-N was corrected for.
26 Alternate check based on overall energy balance.27 Incremental seawater pumping (over base plant heat sink pumping is charged to
water plant. Heat plants are not incremental.28 RO product capacity was set equal to MED capacity for comparison basis.29 Stand-alone power is for RO unit not sharing intake/outfall with power plant30 Contiguous power is for RO unit sharing intake/outfall with power plant
to\o
ABBREVIATIONSAFUOC - Allowance for funds used during construction MAXAVG - Average MEDBS - Base MGMTC - Degree centigrade NOCAP - Capital NOCHEM • Chemical O&MCOND - Condensation PITCONSTR - Construction PPMCONT - Contiguous PRESSCONTG'CY - Contingency PROOCST - Coast PURCT - Cost PURCU.M - Cubic meter ROCU.M/D - Cubic meter per day RTRNEEC - European Economic Community S-AELEC - Electricity STNO-ALNEQ - Equivalant SEAUTRGOR - Gain output ratio SPECHD • Head STM1DC • Interest during construction TDSINC - Incremental TEMP1NCRMTL • Incremental TOTINS - Insurance TURBINT - Interest WHOINT - Intermediate WTRLN-91* - Levelized in 1991 US$ YRLT-MEO - Low Temperature Multi Effect Distillation
- Maximum- Multi Effect Distillation- Management- North- Number- Operation and Maintenance- Plant- Parts per million- Pressure- Production- Power- Reactor type: Pressurized Water Reactor- Reverse Osmosis- Return- Stand-Alone- Stand-Alone- Seauater- Specific- System- Total dissolved solid- Temperature- Total- Turbine- World Health Organization- Water- Year
Annex IV
WATER TRANSPORT COSTS
The following is a typical example of water transportdesalination plants over a long distance in North Africa.
cost for large
Assumptions;Flow rate :Water velocity :Transport distance :Distance between pumping stationsOutlet pressure :Difference of altitude between
station 5 and 6 :
200 000 m3/day1 m/sec300 km50 km0.05 MPa100 m
Scheme St. 6
Station 1 to 4
Transport costs are calculated from the following:Technical results:
Pipe cross section :Pipe diameter :Station 1 :Station 2 to 4 and 6 :Station 5 :Total electric power :Specific electric consumption
2.3m2
I.70 mUp = 0.43 MPa PAp = 0.42 MPa PAp = 1.45 MPa PII.8 MW(e)1.77 kW.h/m3
1.6 MW(e)1.4 MW(e)4.7 MW(e)
10% safety margin has been taken for the 1st pumping station powercapacity for startup, refilling, etc.
Pipe construction cost data:
Below ground :SectionsEquipmentLay-outTotalAbove ground :SectionsEquipmentLay-outTotal
5 and 6$1000/m$1000/m$2000/m
5 and 6ilOOO/m$ 500/ro$1500/m
others$ 600/m$1000/m$1600/m
others$ 600/m$ 500/millOO/m
131
Pumping stations construction cost;Station 5 of 4.7 MW(e) :Other stations :
$3.1 million$1.5 million each
Total construction costs:
(millionType of pipe Below ground Above ground
Pipe costStation costs
500
1038010
Total 510 390
Contribution of transport to specific water costs:(40 years assumed life time)
Type of pipe Below ground Above ground
Discount rate
Capital cost
Energy cost
O&M
8 %
0.73
0.09
0.03
5
0
0
0
%
.39
.09
.04
Total 0.85 0.52
132
Water TransportData
VolumeVelocityDistanceLevel differenceOutlet pressureElectricity costsResults/ModelRef. BibliographicEditorVolume m3/secSection m2Diameter mPressure drop Pa/m
" total MPaPower MW(e)Cost pipeline million$Cost pump. st. million$Total cost million^Investment mills/m3Energy mills/m3O&M mills/m3Total mills/m3
200 000 m3/d1 m/sec.50 km0 m0 MPa$0.07/kW.h
CEAManningHick'sMe. Gr. Hill
2.3152.3151.7178.470.42371.363
67774
671133111
DarcyWeisbachHydr. Dredg.CMP
2.3152.3151.7176.280.31421.010
67673
670733107
Hazen(C=100)Pump . handb .Me. Gr. Hill
2.3152.3151.7177.050.35231.133
676
73
670933109
ManningPump. handb.Me. Gr. Hill
2.3152.3151.7176.780.33881.089
67673
670833108
Data and interim calculationsDynamic viscosity of water m2/sect = 20°CRe number =(V m/sec x D. m)
1.01E-06
1.70E+06Friction coefficientRe < 2000; laminarf = 64 / ReFriction coefficientRe > 4000; turbulentf =Pressure dropf x V2/(D x 2g); Ap =Dynamic pressure drop mk.d.V2/2.g
3.77E-05
1.92E-02 Concrete piping5.70E-02 Pressure drop due to friction2,55E-02
133
Water TransportData
VolumeVelocityDistanceLevel differenceOutlet pressureElectricity costsResults/ModelRef. BibliographicEditorVolume m3/secSection m2Diameter mPressure drop Pa/m
" total MPaPower MW(e)Cost pipeline million^Cost pump. st. million^Total cost million$
Investment mills/m3Energy mills/m3O&M mills/m3Total mills/m3
200 000 m3/d1 m/sec.50 km100 m0.05 MPa$0.07/kW.hCEAManningHick'sMe. Gr. Hill
2.3152.3151.7178.471.45444.676
671582
683733138
DarcyWeisbachHydr. Dredg.CMP
2.3152.3151.7176.281.34494.324
671582
683433135
Hazen(C=100)Pump.handb.Me. Gr. Hill
2.3152.3151.7177.051.38304.446
671582
683533136
ManningPump . handb .Me. Gr. Hill
2.3152.3151.7176.781.36954.403
671582
683533136
Data and interim calculations
Dynamic viscosity of water m2/sect = 20°CRe number =(V m/sec x D. m)
1.01E-06
1,70E+06Friction coefficientRe < 2000; laminarf = 64 / ReFriction coefficientRe > 4000; turbulentf =Pressure dropf x V2/(D x 2g); Ap =Dynamic pressure drop mk.d.V2/2.g
3.77E-05
1,92E-02 Concrete piping
5,70E-02 Pressure drop due to friction
2.55E-02
134
Annex V
CASE STUDY ON POTABLE WATER SUPPLY IN SOUTH TUNISIA
V.l. SOUTH TUNISIA
The data and information used in this annex are from a preliminary studymade in 1988 by SONEDE (Société Nationale de Distribution d'Eau) of Tunisia.
The area of South Tunisia, which has a well established tourist locationcomprises the Governorates of Medenine and Tataouine, as well as the region ofMareth. Further development of tourism is limited by water availability andelectric power supply reliability.
Present potable water supply for this area is ensured by a common waterdistribution system known as South Tunisia network.
In 1990, the population supplied by this network reached 447 000inhabitants distributed as follows:
319 000 inhabitants within Medenine, that is 92% of total populationof the Governorate.100 000 inhabitants within Tatouine, that is 82% of total populationof the Governorates.28 000 inhabitants within Mareth area.
49 000 inhabitants are not supplied by this network and rely principallyon local resources.
The population concerned by the present project would reach 593 000 and786 000 inhabitants respectively in 2000 and 2010.
Figure V.I situates the area considered.
V.2. ESTIMATION OF WATER AND ELECTRICITY DEMAND1. Water demand
The water demand assumptions are given by the curves 1 and 2 in FigureV.2. Curve 1 gives the average specific water demand in litres per connectedperson per day. The decrease in the average demand per inhabitant is due toaccess to water distribution systems of families with modest incomes, specificeffort by large consumers to use other local sources, and overall economiceffort from all consumers by water price structure. After 2008, the previousefforts being realized, the demand has a more continuous growth and increasesagain to reach a constant value by 2030, which corresponds to a saturation ofthe demand to a better water management. Curve 2 describes the growth oftotal South Tunisia population. Curve 3 is the synthesis of the demand for alarge growth scenario. It is derived from Table V.I, which contains data onall water needs.Electricity demand
The demand is expressed for the whole of Tunisia. As electricitytransport is not expensive, the production means are optimized at a nationallevel. Curve 4 in Figure V.2 gives the electricity demand for Tunisia.
135
Bizert
Tabar.
elfcia
SouaseMonastlr
oknlne
F/G. V.l. Area considered in the study.
136
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Legend:
-B- distributed specific water demand for South Tunisia [litre per person per day]
growth of total urban population for South Tunisia [number of inhabitants]
synthesis of the water demand or urban and tourist populationfor South Tunisia [cubic metres per day]
electricity demand for whole Tunisia [TWh per year]
FIG. V.2. Estimation of water and electricity demand.
137
TABLE V.l. SYNTHESIS OF WATER NEEDS AND DEFICIT IN SOUTH TUNISIA4'
(1/s)
Years Djerba Zarzis Others Total Supply Deficit
1990199319952000200520102015
urban
141162181227274
321371
tourist urban
343461616177
77
67
7689
1 1 1
126
141
157
tourist
16163030303434
156198252321
411
559
716
415
486614
751
901
1131
1355
available 1/s
510510510510510510510
-95-24104
241
391
621845
m'/d
00
898620822337825365873008
*' Large tourist growth scenario.
V.3. POSSIBLE RESOURCES
The possible resources available to satisfy the demand previouslyidentified, are as follows: (see also Figures V.3 and V.4)
1. use of national resources presently being tappedThe water tables of Zeuss-Routine, Medenine, Tatouine and Gabes produce
510 1/s with a salinity between 2 and 3.5 g/1.2. Water supply by other resources
For the South, the water tables which can be used are distributed in 3zones:
A: Bir Amir, B: Oum-Zouggar, C: Tiaret.
Potential resources are about 520 1/s, with a salinity less than 3 g/1.
The supply of South Tunisia might be envisaged by water coming from theNorth; this solution will be discussed later on.3. Limitation of distribution losses
The water losses in the distribution network is mainly due to the largenumber of small leakages, which renders practically impossible on systematicrepair. The actual repairs are limited to the most important (but few)leakages.
138
vRE M ADAo
BORJ OOURGUIBAO
CMCHIBAr -•
[CL BOOMA
:O
F/G. V.3. Existing water network in South Tunisia.
4. Local brackish water resources
There are water tables from the Pliocene with a salinity between 6 and8 g/1. The water of these resources has to be desalted before distribution,or mixed with low salinity potable water.
Brackish water desalination by reverse osmosis is relatively cheapcompared to seawater desalination. For small inland towns, it may be donewith renewable energies (solar, wind).
139
„.•••' EL.HAMMA),. • • • . . Ji.
GASES
[jjjjijjW.^r.^jjiij^— - ./, -, .,-•->• --N.:. ^ \s$! I'wrfillilSjfir-v^ v:,^^SÉffliâswft(\ .-• < %^-^to^te l1 °x — - -J i*«"* - -- -VV-'-BIRLAHMAR%%Mdh [! !j|*"' X ^-*~7 • >: N- ••*^S'#ffi/?$m**, -** -"•-•-c' iV- ) ^/iï&/%"=- v ,'-<•"- •--<N?^ t:--^^%%L
"H.Ç'*
"S '•'-"•N• X/' X, . >CY
o^ v - VH5AR QHltANE ,' \
y v-' - V-\V"/,-^^______ , iA ». N;.- *- • '™**z: r ~ /* \ * o- **•!XiONti^S. \\\ • V
I ouu loililll - iMlot 1 ' L \ . Ot\^ outa cum___^X ' ' lij.i
^~——^-———^ \,J t *~
o{ L PtJNMA
.j"
tont e --tl« I««H-TI«K
:«*t^f«?-
•_; o v'IRXJM UlAOUINE
I.*" i
L/ VV- ! , •
t flXK/l '.
'\ (^ ^> '
V
kl .^ ftOiiBAir«/7
3g/l
. ————— . • ' /• . • - T|;^• • , » ' y ••'•f'
.\'.'';'^.''- :././ /i.':*-:
BIR ZAR
-\\:3g/l
;-.
«j
m
F/G. V. 4. Wo/er springs in South Tunisia.
140
5. SeawaterThe resources are in this case unlimited. Desalination processes are
constantly evolving in equipments and materials:membranes for reverse osmosis,exchanger-valves for MED and MSF distillation processes.
The following comments summarize the various available options:a) A modular RO plant allows a progressive capital investment, which follows
the increase of water demamd and reliability of the membranes isimproving overtime.
b) Distillation processes should be examined through the coupling with theenergy source. The use of cogeneration and the possibility of waterstorage during the time necessary to balance production and consumptionoffers economic and ecological advantages, because it preserves thequality of the aquifers (ex: water table of Zeuss Kourine).
c) The installation of a desalination unit on a barge can be envisaged, themain interest of this solution is its mobility, which allows to providewater production at the most justified location, for instance whilewaiting for an increase of the demand which would require construction ofa large capacity desalination plant.An autonomous barge for seawater desalination would allow to fillalternatively potable water reservoirs in Djerba and Zarzis. Regularjourney between these locations would be frequent during summer time whenneeds are important for the tourists, but less frequent out of season.This solution is an interesting alternative to the construction of twobrackish water desalination plants in Djerba and Zarzis. It should bemore economical than the construction of a ground seawater desalinationplant either in Djerba or Zarzis.The barge would be built in Bizerte shipyard.
V.4. TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMPARISON
The following cost comparison allows identification of some possiblesolutions:
Water transport by pipelines becomes too expensive over 300 km.Typically. it costs $0.3 per m^/lOO km for flow rates over100 000. nH/day. Bringing water from the North of Tunisia to the Southwould be very costly (in as much as some pipes of the North would have tobe doubled or tripled) and would in the long term be a problem for theavailability of resources in the North.
- Water transportation by tanker from Europe would cost more than $1 perm^ and would use precious foreign currencies.Water supply from the Albian water table in the deep South would alsopose problems of transport cost and tapping of a fossil resource.
- Reduction of losses in the existing distribution network is necessary.Leakages search, connection change, pipe recalibration are efficient andeconomic measures. But, when more reliable materials must be installedor when the type of valves should be changed, costs would generallyexceed those of supplementary and new water resources.
141
TABLE V.2. SONEDE STUDY: COMPARISON OF SOLUTIONS
SOLUTION STARTUP CAPITAL COSTmillion US$
WATER COSTUS$/m3 (88)
1994 2003
1.
2.
Water transportationfrom zones A and Band from zone C
Brackish waterdesalination andseawater desalination
1994
2003
19942003
73162
31111
2.02.3
1.21.8
3. Seawaterdesalination
19942003
83165
3.02.2
4.
5.
Brackish waterdesalination thenwater transfer ofzones A and B
Transfer of waterfrom zone A and Band Medenine brackishwater desalination
19942003
1994
2003
3188
73
93
1.21.2
2.01.7
In view of the above considerations, a feasibility study was performed bySONEDE in 1988 for potable water supply in South Tunisia up to the year 2010.The various solutions investigated are compared in Table V.2.
In this study, the price of electricity was at 50 mills/kW.h. Comparisonof nuclear and fossil energies has not been analysed.
The above potable water costs appear high as compared with the values inseveral IAEA reports. But they include 64% of taxes on imported equipment anda detailed examination of the differences leads to a very good correlationbetween the results of the SONEDE study and the cost estimates of this IAEAstudy.
The main factors accounting for the difference between cost around $1 perm3 in this IAEA report and around $2 per m^ in SONEDE costs are:
- taxes (64%) on imported equipment (which represent 65% of the totalfor desalination and about 15% for water transport),
- discount rate (12% for SONEDE),- size effect (large versus small power plants),- higher costs of desalination investment taken in 1988,- some distribution costs accounted in SONEDE estimate.
142
The conclusion of the study is as follows:In the short term (1994), brackish water desalination till 0.3 g/1 shouldbe exploited and by the year 2003 it should be mixed with waters at 3.5g/1 from water tables of zone A, which allows to distribute a watercomprised between 1 and 1.5 g/1 and do not rule out the other possibleoptions for the mid-term.
In the medium term (2006), it is a priori the exploitation of the watertable in the south of zones A and B which is more economic than seawaterdesalination. But the favourable evolutions of costs and efficiences ofdesalination technologies, and the motivation to conserve water from theabove water tables for other uses such aa agriculture, could renderdesalination more interesting, inasmuch as the economy of desalinationcould be improved by an optimized coupling with energy production.
V.5. COUPLING ENERGY AND SEAWATER DESALINATION
Seawater desalination is a resource already considered in the feasibilitystudy and it will be necessary to use it more and more in the future.
The costs of this solution is expected to decrease because thedesalination technology is improving. Construction of large sizes ofdesalination plants will further lead to considerable cost reduction.
Distillation and reverse osmosis are both energy consuming process. Itis necessary to optimize the relation between energy demand, energy source anddesalination plants. To respond to electricity demand, the generationexpansion programme consists of a série of power stations.
There exist two possibilities to adjust the desalination demand to theenergy production:
Install reverse osmosis modules which coincide with the increments ofelectricity production and so limit the financing needs. This is thesolution presently adopted.Use the energy production increments coupled with the distillation unitsto produce during the first years of operation potable water, which wouldbe stored in aquifers. This solution has the advantage to protect thewater tables against overexploitation but the technology of waterinjection into the aquifers still remains somewhat delicate.Such an optimization between energy and water production is necessary to
lower the potable water costs which would remain high if the problems aredealt with in a too limited area.
V.6. CONCLUSIONThis study shows that long term water supply for South Tunisia requires
seawater desalination in the future for two main reasons:Reserve brackish natural waters for local needs (agriculture, cattle,etc.);The seawater desalination technology is improving and costs will furtherdecrease.
143
REFERENCES
[I] AYIBOTELE, N.B., The World's Water: Assessing the Resource, International Conferenceon Water and the Environment, 26-31 January 1992, Dublin, WMO, Geneva (1992).
[2] WANGNICK, K., IDA Worldwide Desalting Plants Inventory Report No. 12, WangnickConsulting, Gnarrenburg, Germany (1992).
[3] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Use of Nuclear Reactors for SeawaterDesalination, IAEA-TECDOC-574, Vienna (1990).
[4] SILVER, R.S., Fresh Water from the Sea, Meeting of Institution of Mechanical Engineers(1964).
[5] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Nuclear Applications for Steam and HotWater Supply, IAEA-TECDOC-615, Vienna (1991).
[6] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Status of Advanced Technology andDesign for Water Cooled Reactors: Light Water Reactors, IAEA-TECDOC-479, Vienna(1988).
[7] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Small and Medium Power Reactors:Project Initiation Study, Phase I, IAEA-TECDOC-347, Vienna (1985).
[8] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Small and Medium Power Reactors,IAEA-TECDOC-445, Vienna (1987).
[9] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Costs and Financing of Nuclear PowerProgrammes in Developing Countries, IAEA-TECDOC-378, Vienna (1986).
[10] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Promotion and Financing of NuclearPower Programmes in Developing Countries, Report to the IAEA by a Senior Expert Group,IAEA, Vienna (1987).
[II] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Financing of Nuclear Power Projectsin Developing Countries, IAEA-TECDOC-610, Vienna (1991).
[12] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Financing Arrangements for NuclearPower Projects in Developing Countries, Technical Reports Series (in preparation).
[13] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Desalination of Water UsingConventional and Nuclear Energy, Technical Reports Series No. 24, IAEA, Vienna (1964).
[14] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Nuclear Energy for Water Desalination,Technical Reports Series No. 51, IAEA, Vienna (1966).
[15] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Costing Methods for NuclearDesalination, Technical Reports Series No. 69, IAEA, Vienna (1966).
[16] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guide to the Costing of Water fromNuclear Desalination Plants, Technical Reports Series No. 80, IAEA, Vienna (1967).
[17] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guide to the Costing of Water fromNuclear Desalination Plants, Technical Reports Series No. 151, IAEA, Vienna (1973).
145
[18] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Study on Nuclear and ConventionalBaseload Electricity Generation Cost Experience, IAEA-TECDOC Series, Vienna (inpreparation).
[19] NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY OF THE OECD/INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY,Projected Costs of Generating Electricity from Power Stations for Commissioning the Period1995-2000, OECD/NEA-IEA, Paris (1989).
[20] NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY OF THE OECD, Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,OECD/NEA (1985) - 1992 update to be published.
[21] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Feasibility Study for Small and MediumNuclear Power Plants in Egypt, IAEA-TECDOC Series (in preparation).
[22] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Economic Evaluation of Bids forNuclear Power Plants, 1986 Edition, a Guidebook, Technical Reports Series No. 269, IAEA,Vienna (1986).
[23] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Safety Related Terms for AdvancedNuclear Plants, IAEA-TECDOC-626, IAEA, Vienna (1991).
[24] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Senior Expert Symposium on Electricityand the Environment, Helsinki, Finland, 13-17 May 1991, Executive Summary and KeyIssues Papers (1991).
[25] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Guidebook on the Introduction ofNuclear Power, Technical Reports Series No. 217, IAEA, Vienna (1982).
[26] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Manpower Development for NuclearPower: A Guidebook, Technical Reports Series No. 200, IAEA, Vienna (1980).
[27] UNIPEDE, Method of Calculating the Cost of Electricity Generation from Nuclear andConventional Thermal Stations, EUR 5914, Commission of the European Communities(1979).
146
ABBREVIATIONS
AECL Atomic Energy of Canada LimitedAGM Advisory Group MeetingBOT Build-Operate-TransferBWR Boiling Water ReactorCEA Commissariat à l'Energie AtomiqueGIF Cost, Insurance, FreightCIS Commonwealth of Independent StatesCM Consultants MeetingEC European CommunityFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFBR Fast Breeder ReactorFOB Free On BoardOCR Gas Cooled ReactorGDP Gross Domestic ProductGOR Gain-Output RatioGNP Gross National ProductHTR High Temperature (Gas Cooled) ReactorHWR Heavy Water ReactorIDA International Desalination AssociationIDC Interest During ConstructionLCD Litres per Capita and DayLMR Liquid Metal (cooled) ReactorLSD Low Speed DieselLT Low TemperatureLTMED Low Temperature Multieffect DistillationLWGR Light Water (Cooled) Graphite (Moderated) ReactorMED Multieffect DistillationMED/VC Multieffect Distillation with Vapour CompressionMHTGR Modular High Temperature Gas Cooled ReactorMSF Multistage Flash DistillationMVC Mechanical Vapour CompressionNOAK Nth-Of-A-KindNSSS Nuclear Steam Supply SystemO&M Operation and MaintenancePWR Pressurized Water ReactorRO Reverse OsmosisSONEDE Société Nationale de Distribution d'EauTCM Thousands of Cubic MetresTDS Total Dissolved SolidTVC Thermal Vapour CompressionUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNIPEDE International Union of Producers and Distributors of Electrical EnergyUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationVC Vapour CompressionWER Pressurized Water Reactor (of East European design)WCR Water Cooled ReactorWHO World Health OrganizationWMO World Meteorological Organization
147
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions are used throughout the report:
Contiguous plant
Dedicated power plant
Desalination plant
Dual purpose plant
Membrane process
Power plant
Single purpose plant
Stand alone plant
Power plant jointly located with desalination plant, with shared seawaterintake/outlet structures.
Power plant not connected to the electrical grid. Total productioncapacity is dedicated to supply the desalination plant with energy.
Installations comprizing all buildings, structures, systems and componentsnecessary to produce potable water from saline water, with an input ofenergy, in the form of heat and electricity, or electricity only.
Reactor or fossil fuelled power plant with a product output of both heat(steam or hot water) and electricity. It is to be noted that the concept of"dual purpose" (and "single purpose") plant is sometimes used in adifferent sense in the desalination field, where it applies to a combinedenergy source and desalination complex. "Dual purpose" in this sensewould mean a desalination complex supplying simultaneously electricityto the grid (or an outside consumer) and producing desalinated water."Single pupose" would mean that the only product of the complex isdesalinated water. This interpretation of the term "dual purpose" (andsingle purpose) is not applied in the present report in order to avoidconfusion.
Desalination process based on the use of membranes. Energy input is inthe form of electricity.
Installation comprizing all buildings, structures, systems and componentsnecessary to produce energy.
Power plant with a single output (product), either heat only, or electricityonly.
Power plant jointly located with desalination plant, not sharing seawaterintake/outlet structures.
149
CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW
Abbadi, K.Abdelkarem, B.Aboughalya, Ez DeanAissa, M.Ait Haddou, A.
Al-Furaj, K. MohammadAl-Kofahi, M.Al-Mugrabi, M.Al-Shibu, M.Barak, A.Ben Kraiem, H.Bou-Hasan, A. HamadCatsaros, N.Crijns, M.J.Csik, B.J.D'AmatoDoroszlai, P.O.El Mghari-Tabib, M.Fihri, AH FassiGavrikov, A.S.Hada, K.Handa, N.Hattori, S.Hellal, El-Hacene
Hu, C.W.Jamil, K.Kannari, T.Khaled, A.Khaled, B.Khamis, I.Kielbasa, W.Knoglinger, E.Kupitz, J.Kutbi, I.La Bar, M.Loh, G.Mandil, Mohamed A.Marzouk, A.Mazza, J.Megahed, M.Mekhemar, S.S.Minato, A.Motley, D.Mukhtar, R.Mussa, M.Nevin, Paul F.Nisan, S.Pochernin, V.A.Polunichev, V.I.
Ministère de l'Energie, MoroccoSecretariat of Electricity, Libyan Arab JamahiriyaSecretariat of Atomic Energy, Libyan Arab JamahiriyaSociété Tunisienne de l'Electricité et du Gaz, TunisiaCentre National de l'Energie des Sciences et des Techniques Nucléaires,MoroccoMinistry of Electricity and Water, KuwaitArab Atomic Energy Agency, TunisiaSecretariat of Atomic Energy, Libyan Arab JamahiriyaSecretariat of Atomic Energy, Libyan Arab JamahiriyaIsrael Atomic Energy Commission, IsraelL'Ecole Nationale d'Ingénieurs de Tunis, TunisiaMinistry of Electricity and Water, KuwaitGreek Atomic Energy Commission, GreeceInternational Atomic Energy AgencyInternational Atomic Energy AgencyComisiön Nacional de Energfa Atömica, ArgentinaCOMTAG, SwitzerlandOffice National de l'Eau Potable, MoroccoMinistère de l'Energie et des Mines, MoroccoAtomenergoexport, Commonwealth of Independent StatesJapan Atomic Energy Research Institute, JapanToshiba Corporation, JapanCentral Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, JapanMinistère Délégué à la Recherche, la Technologie et à l'Environnement,AlgeriaInternational Atomic Energy AgencyPermanent Mission of Libyan Arab Jamahiriyan, AustriaSasakura Engineering Co. Ltd, JapanSecretariat of Atomic Energy, Libyan Arab JamahiriyaSecretariat of Atomic Energy, Libyan Arab JamahiriyaAtomic Energy Commission, Syrian Arab RepublicZarnowiec Nuclear Power Plant Under Liquidation, PolandPaul Scherrer Institute, SwitzerlandInternational Atomic Energy AgencyKing Abdulaziz University, Saudi ArabiaGeneral Atomics, United States of AmericaGeneral Atomics, United States of AmericaUniversity of Alexandria, EgyptSociété Nationale de Distribution d'Eau, TunisiaComisiön Nacional de Energfa Atömica, ArgentinaNuclear Power Plants Authority, EgyptAtomic Energy Authority, EgyptCentral Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, JapanWestinghouse Electric Corporation, United States of AmericaSecretariat of Atomic Energy, Libyan Arab JamahiriyaSecretariat of Atomic Energy, Libyan Arab JamahiriyaWade Manufacturing Co., BahrainCommissariat à l'Energie Atomique, FranceAtomenergoexport, Commonwealth of Independent StatesExperimental Machine Building Design Bureau, Commonwealth ofIndependent States
151
Protsenko, T.Yu.
Ramadan, M.Ramani, M.P.S.Rastorguev, L.V.Rouillard, J.Rouyer, J.L.Schleicher, R.Sergeev Yu, A.
Simon, W.A.Steinwarz, W.Tatah, B.Tusel, G.F.Verma, R.K.Villanueva Moreno, C.Wang, DazhongWangnick, K.Woite, G.Xu, YuanhuiYu, AndyZelenetski, Y.V.Zlobin, L.N.
Experimental Machine Building Design Bureau, Commonwealth ofIndependent StatesSecretariat of Atomic Energy, Libyan Arab JamahiriyaBhabha Atomic Research Centre, IndiaAtomenergoexport, Commonwealth of Independent StatesConsulting Engineer, FranceCommissariat à l'Energie Atomique, FranceGeneral Atomics, United States of AmericaInstitute of Physics and Power Engineering, Commonwealth ofIndependent StatesGeneral Atomics, United States of AmericaSiemens AG, GermanyCentre de Développement des Systèmes Energétiques, AlgeriaSecretariat of Atomic Energy, Libyan Arab JamahiriyaBhabha Atomic Reserach Centre, IndiaPermanent Mission of Mexico, Vienna, AustriaInstitute of Nuclear Energy Technology, ChinaWangnick Consulting, GermanyInternational Atomic Energy AgencyInstitute of Nuclear Energy Technology, ChinaAtomic Energy of Canada Limited, CanadaAtomenergoexport, Commonwealth of Independent StatesAtomenergoexport, Commonwealth of Independent States
Consultants MeetingsVienna, Austria: 18-21 February 1991, 15-19 July 1991,
14-18 October 1991, 30 March-3 April 1992, 25-30 June 1992
Advisory Group MeetingVienna, Austria: 25-29 November 1991
Technical Committee MeetingVienna, Austria: 22-24 June 1992
Tfo
152
